BiDikal  ana 
Oriental  Series 


RELIGK)US  AND 
MORAL  IDEAS  IN 
BABYLONIA  AND 
ASSYRIA 


MERCER 


MAR  -2S  1920 


BR  45  .B52  v. 2  i 

Mercer,  Samuel  A.  B.  b.      | 

1880. 
Religious  and  moral  ideas  in 
Babylonia  and  Assyria      | 


Biblical  and  Oriental     >rie$ 

SAMUEL  A.  B.  MERCER,  General  Edit> 


RELIGIOUS  AND  MORAL  IDEAS  IN 
BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


i 


iblical  and  Oriental  Series 


SAMUEL  A.  B.  MERCER,  General  Editor 

The  object  of  this  Series  on  the  Bible  and 
Oriental  Civilization  is  to  make  the  results  of 
expert  investigation  accessible  to  laymen.  Some- 
times these  results  will  be  presented  in  the  form 
of  daily  readings,  and  sometimes  in  that  of  con- 
tinuous discussion.  Specialists  in  every  case  will 
be  employed,  who  will  endeavor  to  present  their 
subjects  in  the  most  effective  and  profitable  way. 

The  Book  of  Genesis  for  Bible  Classes  and 
Private  Study 
By  Samuel  A.  B.  Mercer  (non>  read^). 

The  Growth  of  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 
IN  Egypt 

By  Samuel  A.  B.  Mercer  (non>  ready). 

The  Book  of  Isaiah  for  Bible  Classes  and 
Private  Study 

By  D.  Roy  Matthews  (in  preparation). 

Religious  and  Moral  Ideas  in  Babylonia  and 
Assyria 
By  Samuel  A.  B.  Mercer  (noiv  ready). 


Morehouse  Publishing  Company 


RELIGIOUS  AND  MORAL  IDEAS 

IN 

BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


SAMUEL  A.  B.  MERCER,  Ph.D.,  D.i3r ' 

Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Testament  in  the  Western  Theological 

Seminary,  Chicago;    Rector  of  the  Society  of  Oriental 

Research,  and  Editor  of  its  Journal;  Editor 

of  the  Anglican  Theological  Review 


MOREHOUSE  PUBLISHING  CO. 
MILWAUKEE,  WIS. 

A.  R.  MOWBRAY  &  CO. 
LONDON 


COPYRIGHT    BY 

MOREHOUSE  PUBLISHING  CO. 
1919 


TO 
THE  MEMORY  OF 

SIR  HENRY  RAWLINSON 

PIONEER    ASSYRIOLOGIST 


PREFACE 

The  names  of  mighty  Babylon  and  proud  Assyria 
will  never  be  forgotten,  and  their  memory  will  never 
cease  among  men.  So  long  as  modern  civilization 
lasts ;  so  long  as  Christianity  sways  men's  hearts ;  and 
so  long  as  the  Bible  is  read.  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
Nineveh  and  Babylon  will  be  names  to  conjure  with. 
The  excavations  begun  in  the  mounds  of  the  Tigris- 
Euphrates  valley  not  more  than  a  century  ago  have 
revealed  many  things  about  these  ancient  peoples. 
Much  more  remains  to  be  done.  There  are  still 
many  problems  to  be  solved,  many  gaps  to  be  filled, 
and  many  phenomena  to  be  interpreted. 

This  little  book,  by  a  student  and  lover  of  these 
ancient  peoples,  can  give  only  a  glimpse  of  one  of  the 
most  fascinating  problems  of  Semitic  culture.  The 
religious  and  moral  ideas  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
not  only  because  of  their  close  and  unique  relation  to 
the  Old  Testament,  and  through  it  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  to  Christianity,  but  also  because  of  them- 
selves, are  second  to  none  in  human  interest. 

The  author  has  assumed  a  certain  ls:nowledge  of 
the  history  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  on  the  part  of 
the  reader,  but  he  has  endeavoured  to  make  what  he 
has  to  say  as  readable  for  the  layman  as  possible. 
In  order  to  assist  the  reader  in  fonning  an  historical 
background  for  his  study,  the  author  has  prefixed  a 

vii 


viii  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

chronological  outline ;  and,  to  avoid  overcrowding  the 
pages  with  references  and  footnotes,  he  has  appended 
a  selected  bibliography.  But  be  it  noted,  in  order  to 
inspire  due  confidence  in  our  study,  that  no  assertion 
has  been  made,  and  no  conclusion  has  been  drawn, 
which  cannot  be  thoroughly  substantiated  by  reference 
to  the  original  texts.  So  that  our  study,  while  aiming 
at  a  modern  presentation  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
religious  and  moral  ideas,  has  never  once  consciously 
departed  from  facts  deducible  from  the  monuments. 

On  account  of  the  limitations  of  our  plan,  much 
detail  has  had  to  be  omitted.  No  discussion  of  the 
astrological  theories  of  Winckler  and  Jeremias  has 
been  offered,  nor  have  the  relations  between  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian  religious  thought  and  that  of  the 
Old  Testament  been  discussed.  These  subjects  be- 
long to  fuller  treatments.  But  this  plan,  it  is  hoped, 
has  permitted  a  clearer  and  more  connected  exposi- 
tion of  the  ideas  of  God  and  Man,  of  Mediation  and 
the  Future,  and  of  Morality,  in  Babylonia  and 
Assyria,  than  could  have  been  gained  in  a  more 
detailed  study. 

It  only  remains  to  be  said  that  the  author  hopes 
that  this  little  essay,  with  all  its  imperfections,  will 
add  to  the  growing  interest  in  the  past,  and  especially 
in  those  great  culture  lands,  which  are  the  cradle  of 
the  world's  best  thought  and  noblest  ideals. 

Samuel  A.  B.  Mercer. 
Hibbard  Egyptian  Library 
Western  Theological  Seminary,  Chicago 
April  4,  1919 


CONTENTS 

I. — Chronological    Outline    of    Baby- 
lonian AND  Assyrian  History     .        xi 

11. — Introduction 1 

III. — The  Idea  of  God  in  Babylonia  and 

Assyria 6 

IV. — The  Idea  of  Man  in  Babylonia  and 

Assyria 34 

V. — The   Idea   of   Mediation   in   Baby- 
lonia AND  Assyria 61 

VI. — The  Idea  of  the  Future  in  Baby- 
lonia AND  Assyria 90 

VII. — The  Idea  of  Morality  in  Babylonia 

AND  Assyria 96 

VIII. — A  Selected  Bibliography     .      .      .     125 
IX.— Index 127 


IX 


CHRONOLOGICAL  OUTLINE  OF 
BABYLONIAN   AND   ASSYRIAN    HISTORY 

PERIOD  OF  SUMERIAN  SUPREMACY,  3400*-2225  B.  C. 

3400-2225  B.  C.  Southern  and  Northern  Babylonia,  that  is, 
Sumer  and  Akkad,  were  divided  among 
many  city-states.  This  gave  rise  to  various 
dynasties,  the  chief  of  which  are:  Dynasty 
of  Kish,  2750-2650;  Dynasty  of  Akkad, 
2650-2600;  Dynasty  of  Lagash,  2650-2300; 
Dynasty  of  Ur,  2450-2300;  Dynasty  of 
Nisin,  2300-2115;  Dynasty  of  Larsa,  2335- 
2069. 

3400-2750  "  During  this  period,  before  the  rise  of  the 
Dynasties  of  Kish,  Akkad,  and  Lagash, 
there  were  many  kings  in  Kish,  Opis,  Akkad, 
Lagash,  Umma,  Uruk,  and  Ur,  the  chief  of 
which  were  Utug,  the  first  king  of  Kish, 
about  3400  B.  C;  Mesilim  of  Kish,  shortly 
after  Utug;  Lugalshag-engur,  in  Lagash,  a 
contemporary  of  Mesilim;  and  Lugal-zag- 
gisi,  king  of  Erech  and  Sumer,  about  2800, 
the  first  great  empire-builder  of  Babylonia. 
From  about  2950-2800  a  line  of  important 
kings,  beginning  with  Eannatum,  reigned 
in  Lagash. 

2750-2650      "     Sharru-Gi  founded  the  Dynasty  of  Kish. 


♦  These  early  dates  are  approximate. 

xi 


xii  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

2650-2600  B.  C.  During  this  short  period  two  of  the  most 
famous  kings  of  Babylonia  ruled,  namely, 
Sargon  and  his  son  Naram-Sin.  They 
formed  the  dynasty  of  Akkad. 

2650-2300  "  Dynasty  of  Lagash.  This  dynasty  num- 
bered many  great  rulers,  among  them  being 
Ur-Bau  and  Gudea. 

2450-2300  "  Dynasty  of  Ur,  whose  first  king  was  Ur- 
Engur,  who  was  immediately  succeeded  by 
the  famous  rulers,  Dungi,  Bur-Sin,  Gimil- 
Sin,  and  Ibi-Sin. 

2300-2115  "  Dynasty  of  Nisin,  which  ran  down  into  the 
period  contemporaneous  with  the  First 
Babylonian  Dynasty. 

2335-2069  "  Dynasty  of  Larsa,  contemporaneous  with 
the  Dynasty  of  Nisin.  Its  greatest  kings 
were  Warad-Sin,  Rim-Sin,  Hammurapi,  and 
Samsu-iluna,  the  last  two  of  whom  reigned 
in  Babylon  also. 

During  this  period  great  centres  of  wor- 
ship had  developed  in  both  north  and 
south,  and  the  cult  had  assumed  a  form 
which  changed  very  little  in  later  times. 
Due,  however,  to  the  different  centres  of 
political  power,  and  the  consequent  lack  of 
national  unity,  no  progress  was  made  in 
the  way  of  religious  centralization. 

PERIOD  OF  BABYLONIAN  SUPREMACY,  2225-732  B.  C. 

2225-1926  B.  C.  First  Babylonian,  or  Hammurapi,  Dynasty. 
Babylon's  great  antagonists  were  Nisin  and 
Larsa.  Nisin  was  captured  in  2115,  and 
Hammurapi  defeated  Rim-Sin,  and  sub 
dued  Larsa  in  2092.  Henceforth,  there  was 
no  question  about  the  supremacy  of  Baby- 
lon. With  the  defeat  of  Rim-Sin  Babylon 
became  the  centre,  and  its  god,  Marduk,  be- 
came head   of   the  pantheon.     There  arose 


Chronological  Outline  xiii 

a  tendency  to  supplant  all  the  great  gods 
of  former  times  by  Marduk.  Poems  that 
were  written  in  honour  of  other  gods  were 
now  accommodated  to  Marduk.  Imperialism 
was  afoot  in  both  religion  and  state.  More 
organization  in  religion  was  done  in  this 
period  than  at  any  other  time  in  the  history 
of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  And  not  only 
in  religion,  but  also  in  all  spheres  of  human 
activity,  Hammurapi  was  the  great  or- 
ganizing genius.  He  built  stately  temples, 
overthrew  mighty  kings,  and  drew  up  a 
Code  of  Laws,  such  as  the  world  had  never 
seen  before.  Nor  were  the  priests  idle. 
They  found  leisure  to  make  a  profound 
study  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  system- 
atized an  astrological  theory  of  religion 
which  remained  down  to  the  very  end  of 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  religious  life,  and 
then  it  converted  itself  into  a  scientific 
astronomy  which  was  inherited  and  further 
developed  by  the  Greeks. 
1926-732  B.  C.  Second  to  Ninth  Babylonian  Dynasties. 
The  eight  Dynasties  of  Babylon  which  suc- 
ceeded the  Hammurapi  Dynasty  never  du- 
plicated what  that  first  golden  era  had 
accomplished.  Babylon  and  Babylonia  re- 
mained strong  in  the  power  of  its  unity 
and  centralization  till  the  period  of  Assyr- 
ian domination. 

PERIOD  OF  ASSYRIAN  OVERLORDSHIP,  732-606  B.  C. 

732-606  B.  C.  Assyria  arose  about  2100  B.  C,  and  soon 
became  the  rival  of  Babylonia.  But  she  did 
not  accomplish  much  in  the  way  of  usurping 
power  over  Babylonia  till  732,  when  Baby- 
lonia, under  her  weak  kings,  fell  an  easy 
prey  to  her  more  virile  northern  neighbour. 


xiv  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

During  Assyria's  supremacy,  the  great  god 
of  Ashur,  namely,  Ashur,  became  supreme 
in  Assyria,  though  Marduk  retained  his 
grandeur  in  Babylon.  Assyria  always 
looked  upon  Babylonia  as  the  great  mother- 
land, and  home  of  culture,  and  was  proud 
of  her  association  with  her.  But  religious 
ideas  and  customs  during  this  period  did 
not  escape  the  militaristic  colouring  of  the 
warlike   country   of   Assyria. 

One  of  the  most  important  Assyrian 
kings  was  Ashurbanipal,  668-625,  who  built 
one  of  the  world's  great  libraries.  It  is 
from  the  ruins  of  this  library  that  thou- 
sands of  our  finest  inscriptions  have  been 
excavated.  Ashurbanipal  caused  copies  to 
be  made  of  the  most  important  literature 
of  Sumeria  and  Babylonia. 

NEO-BABYLONIAN  PERIOD,  625-538  B.  C. 

625-538  B.  C.  Neo-Babylonian  Empire.  According  as 
Assyria  weakened,  during  the  last  fifty 
years  of  her  existence.  Babylonia  became 
strong,  until,  in  625,  Nabopolassar  pro- 
claimed his  independence.  He  was  followed 
by  the  great  Nebuchadrezzar,  and  it  seemed 
for  a  time  as  if  the  old  glory  of  Babylon 
was  about  to  be  restored.  He,  however, 
was  followed  by  a  series  of  weak  kings, 
until  the  weakest  of  them  all,  from  a  mil- 
itary point  of  view,  was  easily  dethroned 
by  the  forces  of  the  virile  Persian  king, 
Cyrus.  Thus  ended  the  Babylonian  empire. 
Persian  kings  ruled  in  Babylon  till  the 
capture  of  that  city  by  Alexander  in  331 
B.  C. 


INTRODUCTION 

In  the  great  temple  of  the  world's  religious 
thought,  Babylonia  and  Assyria  form  one  of  the  most 
important  and  interesting  pillars.  How  clear  and 
sharp  that  temple  stands  out  in  the  history  of  the 
world's  culture !  There  is  the  great,  bright,  solemn 
temple,  where  men  worship  the  gods.  Its  doors  are 
open;  its  windows  tempt  the  sky.  There  are  many 
things  there  that  have  to  do  with  such  a  temple. 
The  winds  come  wandering  through  its  high  arches. 
The  children  roam  across  its  threshold,  and  play  for 
a  few  minutes  on  its  shining  floor.  Banners  and 
draperies  bedeck  its  walls.  Poor  men  and  women, 
with  their  burdens  and  distress,  come  in  and  say  a 
moment's  prayer,  and  hurry  on.  Stately  processions 
pass  up  the  nave,  making  a  brief  disturbance  in  its 
quiet  air.  Generation  after  generation  comes  and 
goes  and  is  forgotten,  each  giving  its  place  up  to 
another;  while  still  the  temple  stands,  receiving  and 
dismissing  them  in  turn,  and  outliving  them  all.  All 
these  are  transitory.  All  these  come  into  the  temple 
and  then  go  out  again.     But  the  day  comes  when 

I 


2  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

the  great  temple  needs  enlargement.  The  plan  which 
it  embodies  must  be  made  more  perfect.  It  is  to  grow 
to  a  completer  self.  And  then  they  bring  up  to  the 
doors  a  column  of  cut  stone,  hewn  in  the  quarry  for 
this  very  place,  fitted  and  fit  for  this  place  and  for  no 
other;  and  bringing  it  in  with  toil,  they  set  it  solidly 
down  as  part  of  the  growing  structure,  part  of  the 
expanding  plan.  It  blends  with  all  the  other  stones. 
It  loses  while  it  keeps  its  individuality.  It  is  useless 
except  there  where  it  is;  and  yet  there,  where  it  is, 
it  has  a  use  which  is  peculiarly  its  own,  and  different 
from  every  other  stone's.  The  walls  are  built  around 
it.  It  shares  the  building's  changes.  The  lights  of 
sacred  festivals  shine  on  its  face.  It  glows  in  the 
morning  sunlight,  and  grows  dim  and  solemn  as  the 
dusk  gathers  through  the  great  expanse.  Generations 
pass  before  it  in  their  worship.  They  come  and  go, 
and  the  new  generations  follow  them,  and  still  the 
pillar  stands.  The  day  when  it  was  hewn  and  set 
there  is  forgotten;  as  children  never  think  when  an 
old  patriarch,  whom  they  see  standing  among  them, 
was  bom.  It  is  part  of  the  temple  where  the  men  so 
long  dead  set  it  so  long  ago. 

Such  is  the  story  of  the  pillar — the  Babylonian 
and  Assyrian  religion — in  the  great  temple  of  the 
world's  religious  thought.  Long,  long  ago,  in  times 
now  forgotten,  a  mountain  people  moved  westward 
into  the  valley  of  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates. 
They  settled  there  and  worshipped  their  gods,  some 
of  whom  had  come  with  them,  and  others  of  whom 
had  revealed  themselves  to  their  worshippers  in  their 


Introduction  3 

new  home.  A  new  pillar  in  the  great  universal  temple 
of  divine  worship  was  brought  in,  to  go  "no  more 
out''.  Later  another  wave  of  migration  entered  these 
fertile  plains.  This  came  from  the  western  home 
of  the  Semites,  and  brought  its  gods  and  religious 
customs  with  it,  adding  beauty  and  form  to  the 
great  pillar  already  established.  A  great  state  was 
set  up  at  Kish,  which  later  became  an  empire  under 
the  first  Sargon,  taking  the  name  of  the  Empire  of 
Akkad.  Other  centres  were  formed  at  Ur,  ITnik, 
Lagash,  etc.  For  many  years  independent  dynasties 
arose  here  and  there,  from  north  to  south,  till  finally, 
sometime  before  2000  B.  C,  Babylon  arose  as  a 
great  centre  and  her  kings,  especially  Hammurapi, 
swayed  the  whole  valley.  About  the  same  time,  in 
the  north,  a  seed  was  sowm,  which  was  destined  to 
become  a  mighty  empire,  whose  unity  was  unique  in 
the  Tigris-Euphrates  valley.  Its  centre  was  at  the 
city  of  Ashur,  and  the  country  was  called  Assyria. 
This  country  was  founded  by  immigrants  from  Nina, 
a  part  of  the  city  of  Lagash,  in  the  south.  They 
brought  their  goddess  Nina,  who  was  later  called 
Tslitar,  and  she  became  the  consort  of  the  proper 
god  of  the  land,  Ashur.  Thus  new  embellishments 
were  added  to  the  stately  pillar  of  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  religion.  But  Assyria  remained  compara- 
tively weak  till  the  time  of  Tiglath-pileser  I,  about 
1117  B.  C.  Meanwhile  Babylon  had  fallen  before 
the  Hittites,  and  into  the  hands  of  the  Kassites  who 
ruled  till  about  1200  B.  C,  after  w^hich  a  series  of 
weak  kings  occupied  the  throne.     Assyria  had  grown 


4  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

great,  and  in  the  reign  of  Tiglath-pileser  I  the  once 
proud  and  mighty  city  of  Babylon  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  Assyrian  kings.  However,  although  the  dynas- 
ties in  Babylonia  and  Assyria  were  different,  and 
their  policies  divergent,  their  religion  was  the  same, 
and  they  worshipped  the  same  gods.  The  pillar  in 
the  great  temple  was  the  same,  only  further  polished 
and  decorated.  And  so  when  the  Assyrian  kings 
marched  into  the  city  of  Babylon  they  did  not 
destroy  it;  rather  they  came  as  if  to  pay  their 
respect  to  Marduk,  the  great  city-god,  and  to  "take 
his  hand",  in  recognition  of  his  supreme  authority  in 
all  things  Babylonian.  Assyrian  religion,  as  well 
as  her  general  culture,  her  art  and  architecture,  her 
science  and  commerce,  her  literature  and  laws,  were 
borrowed  from  Babylonia.  Assyria  fell  in  606  B.  C, 
when  all  life  and  religion  centred  in  Babylon,  and 
the  N'eo-Babylonian  empire  inherited  what  was  com- 
mon and  peculiar  to  both  Babylonia  and  Assyria. 

Small  and  great  religions  as  well  as  small  and  great 
men  must  all  stand  before  the  standard,  or  test,  or 
source,  of  religious  or  individual  judgment.  In  the 
temple  of  the  world's  religion,  the  pillar  representing 
the  religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  stands.  Though 
the  mighty  empires  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  have 
long  passed  on  into  oblivion,  their  religious  as  well 
as  their  cultural  influence  still  lives,  yea,  is  immortal. 
But  this  influence  is  judged  in  the  light  of  a  universal 
religious  standard.  The  pillar  is  strong  or  weak,  fine 
or  inferior,  in  accordance  with  its  comparative  worth 
and  importance  in  the  whole  structure.     When  the 


Introduction  5 

mighty  gods  called  to  Babylonia  and  Assyria  their 
challenge  did  not  always  receive  the  highest  response. 
Shallow  often  responded  to  deep,  instead  of  deep  to 
the  call  of  deep.  In  spite  of  their  mighty  accomplish- 
ments; in  spite  of  the  vision  of  god  which  Babylonia 
and  Assyria  saw  and  gave  to  the  world;  in  spite  of 
their  contributions  to  human  knowledge  and  science; 
and  in  spite  of  their  deep,  keen,  penetration  into  the 
realities  of  moral  law;  their  failure  to  relate  time  to 
eternity,  to  translate  this  world  with  its  sufferings 
and  distress  into  terms  of  universal  realities,  has 
marred  the  perfection  of  their  pillar  in  God's  temple. 
But,  excepting  this  serious  blemish,  the  contribution  of 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  to  the  bulk  of  the  world's  best 
treasures  is  one  of  the  grandest  which  any  race  can 
claim. 


II 

THE  IDEA  OF  GOD  IN  BABYLONIA 
AND  ASSYRIA 

The  world  has  always  been  man's  greatest  problem. 
We  not  only  love  its  landscape  with  all  the  power  of 
our  bodily  senses ;  but  we  also  store  up  its  associations 
with  us,  its  joys  and  its  delights,  and  we  love  it  with 
all  our  heart.  Nor  do  we  stop  there,  for  we  not  only 
respond  to  that  in  the  world  which  appeals  to  our 
reverence  and  gratefulness,  and  so  love  the  world 
with  all  our  soul;  or  to  that  which  appeals  to  our 
power  of  working,  and  so  love  it  with  all  our  strength ; 
but  we  also  respond  to  that  desire,  common  to  all 
humanity,  to  solve  the  great  problems  which  start 
out  from  the  earth  and  from  the  sky  to  tempt  us. 
Scenes  in  nature  cry  out  to  us  to  come  and  admire 
them,  to  come  and  work  on  them,  or  to  come  and 
study  them.  And  immediately  a  series  of  questions 
arises  to  the  baffled  but  determined  mind.  What 
hangs  the  stars  in  their  places  and  swings  them  on 
their  way  ?  How  does  the  earth  build  the  stately  tree 
out  of  the  petty  seed?  How  does  the  river  feed  the 
fields?  What  built  the  mountains,  and  spread  out 
the  plains?     These   and  many   other  similar   ques- 

6 


Idea  of  Cod  7 

tions,  some  simpler,  some  more  profound,  have  always 
been  asked  by  man.  They  leap  out  from  nature,  and, 
pressing  in  past  our  senses  and  emotions  and  prac- 
tical powers,  never  rest  till  they  have  found  out  our 
intelligence.  They  appeal  to  the  mind,  and  the  mind 
responds  to  them — not  coldly,  as  if  it  had  nothing  to 
do  but  just  to  find  and  register  their  answers,  but 
enthusiastically,  loving  the  nature  out  of  which  they 
spring.  And  so  we  love  the  world  in  which  we  live 
with  all  our  mind. 

This  has  always  been  the  experience  of  man.  In 
this  respect  the  early  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  were 
no  exceptions.  But  the  greatest  of  all  problems  that 
presented  itself  to  early  man,  including  the  Babylo- 
nians, was  the  question  of  motion,  which  he  inter- 
preted as  a  sign  of  life.  What  caused  the  rivers  to 
flow  and  the  leaves  to  grow,  the  wind  to  blow  and  the 
storms  to  rage?  Why  did  the  sun,  the  moon,  and 
the  stars  cross  and  recross  the  heavens?  In  short, 
what  is  that  which  seems  to  be  the  cause  of  all  the 
sounds,  and  signs,  and  motions,  which  are  continually 
in  evidence  ?  What  else  but  life,  the  power  of  causing 
motion  and  noise  ?  Man  himself  was  free  to  move,  to 
make  signs,  and  to  utter  sounds,  and  his  power  to  do 
so  consisted  in  his  being  alive.  It  was  his  life  which 
was  the  all  pervading  force  in  his  actions.  It  was  an 
easy  step  for  the  primitive  man  to  make,  when  he 
transferred  this  same  power,  life,  to  every  object — to 
all  objects — for  every  object  was  capable  of  manifest- 
ing power.  Thus  the  early  Babylonians  endowed  every 
object  with  a  zi,  life  or  spirit. 


8  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

The  world  was  full  of  spirits.  There  were  river- 
spirits  and  stream-spirits,  rock-spirits  and  mountain- 
spirits,  vegetation-spirits  and  storm-spirits,  and  many 
others.  The  ways  of  some  spirits  were  understood 
more  thoroughly  than  those  of  others.  But  none  of 
them  were  understood  completely.  They  were  always 
more  or  less  undefined,  and  so  the  various  spirits  were 
always  more  or  less  mysterious.  Those  spirits  who 
were  considered  powerful  and  friendly  were  gods,  and 
those  who  were  unfriendly  and  less  powerful  were 
demons  and  indifferent  spirits. 

The  early  Babylonians  lived  in  small  groups — 
families  or  small  clans — separated  from  one  another. 
Each  such  group  recognized  various  gods,  represent- 
ing the  different  living  objects  in  its  neighbourhood. 
But  that  one  living  object  which  impressed  itself  upon 
the  attention  of  the  group  with  most  intensity  became 
the  manifesting  medium  of  that  spirit,  which  became 
the  god  of  the  group.  Thus  a  social  group  living  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  a  large  body  of  water  would 
have  a  water-god,  just  as  the  community  at  Eridu,  on 
the  Persian  Gulf,  worshipped  Ea,  a  water-god.  But 
it  would  recognize  the  existence  of  many  other  gods. 
The  number  of  possible  gods  was  almost  limitless.  A 
nomadic  group  would  develope  a  very  large  pantheon ; 
and  would  change  its  gods  from  time  to  time,  its  chief 
god  being  the  specific  god  of  the  location  where  it  was 
temporarily  settled.  In  fact,  such  moving  groups  were 
apt  to  interpret  its  deity  as  a  goddess,  in  keeping  with 
the  necessarily  matriarchal  character  of  its  constitu- 
tion.    In  moving  groups  the  mother  is  the  permanent 


Idea  of  Cod  9 

element  in  family  life,  a  fact  which  often  gave  rise  to 
a  belief  in  a  goddess  as  head  of  a  group  of  gods.  This 
consideration  will  probably  explain  the  power  and  in- 
fluence of  Ishtar  among  the  early  Semitic  Babylonians, 
who  were  a  nomadic  people.  It  will  also  account  for 
the  fact  that  Ningirsu,  "lady  of  Girsu",  god  of  Lagash, 
was  originally  a  goddess.  In  settled  and  agricultural 
groups  a  male  deity  was  the  centre  of  divine  life,  with 
whom  was  associated  a  female  consort.  Thus  Ea's 
consort  was  Damkina,  the  "faithful  spouse",  and 
Enlil's  was  Ninlil,  "lady  of  the  storm". 

Primitive  people  ask  of  their  gods  that  they  be  as 
familiar  as  possible,  that  they  have  to  do  with  daily 
life,  that  they  seem  to  issue  from  the  heart  of  common 
things  and  clothe  those  things  with  light  which 
makes  them  radiant.  They  dread  mystery.  They 
hate  to  be  bidden  to  lift  up  their  eyes  and  look  far 
away.  They  desire  their  gods  to  be  near,  and  they  find 
them  in  all  affairs  of  life,  domestic  and  public,  social 
and  political.  Consequently,  when  a  group  grew  and 
became  powerful,  the  god  of  the  group  likewise  grew 
and  became  powerful.  If  the  group  added  to  itself 
other  groups  or  absorbed  them,  the  god  of  the  group 
added  to  himself  the  gods  of  the  added  groups  or 
absorbed  them.  In  this  way  groups  of  gods  or  pan- 
theons arose. 

In  Babylonia  the  earliest  centres  of  such  enlarged 
groups — towms  which  added  to  themselves  and  ab- 
sorbed all  villages  and  towns  in  their  vicinity — 
were  Eridu,  Ur,  Uruk,  Nippur,  Kutha,  Opis,  Kish, 
Agade,  and  Sippar.    There  were  others,  such  as  La- 


1 0  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

gash,  Babylon,  Ashur.  The  god  of  such  a  centre 
became  the  chief  deity  and  around  him  were  assem- 
bled, among  others,  the  gods  and  goddesses  of  the 
united  and  absorbed  communities.  Thus  at  the 
dawn  of  history  we  find  Enlil  of  Nippur,  Ea  or  Enki 
of  Eridu,  and  Anu  and  Ishtar  or  Nana  of  Erech 
worshipped  as  heads  of  great  groups  of  peoples.  In 
fact,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  each  of  these 
great  centres  held  sway  over  a  large  portion  of  the 
country  at  different  times;  Enlil  of  Nippur,  for 
instance,  receiving  homage  from  gods  of  distant  cen- 
tres, which  were  themselves  centres  of  great  groups 
of  people.  That  is,  the  more  powerful  a  great  city 
or  state  became,  the  more  extended  the  sway  of  its 
chief  god  was.  This  was  also  true  of  Ningirsu  of 
Lagash,  Nana  and  Anu  of  Uruk,  Sin  of  Ur,  and 
Shama?h  of  Larsa,  and  of  Sippar. 

It  sometimes  happened  also  that  the  god  of  an 
absorbed  town  became  the  chief  god  of  the  absorbing 
city.  This  is  true  of  Ningirsu  of  Lagash,  who  was 
originally  lord,  or  lady,  of  Girsu,  a  town  which 
undoubtedly  became  amalgamated  into  Lagash.  Then 
around  Ningirsu  of  Lagash  gathered  a  whole  pantheon 
of  deities.  The  chief  of  these  was  Bau,  his  consort, 
besides  deities  of  irrigation,  of  weapons,  of  musical 
instruments,  of  flocks  and  herds,  of  fishes,  and  of 
streams,  of  household  duties,  and  of  cattle.  And 
deitie=  of  surrounding  towns  were  granted  a  place  in 
the  central  temple,  or  a  quarter  in  the  city,  of  Lagash. 
Such  were  the  goddesses  Gatuiiidug.  Nina,  and 
Innina.     In  later  times  Marduk  of  Babylon  and  his 


Idea  of  God  1  1 

consort  Sarpanit  grouped  around  thomselves  such 
powerful  deities  as  Ea  and  Damkina  of  Eridu,  Nabu 
and  Tashmit  of  Borsippa,  Nergal  and  Allatu  of 
Kutha,  Shamash  and  Ai  of  Sippar,  and  Sin  and 
Ningal  of  Ur.  This  was  due  to  the  extraordinary 
greatness  of  Marduk's  city,  Babylon.  Nor  did  the 
tendency  end  there,  for  the  characteristics  and 
achievements  of  the  absorbed  and  associated  gods  were 
very  often  assumed  by  the  absorbing  god.  Thus  Mar- 
duk  replaced  Enlil  in  the  creation  story  in  the  same 
way  that  he  himself  was  absorbed  by  Yahweh,  in  later 
times,  in  the  Hebrew  references  to  creation. 

In  the  very  earliest  times  divine  manifestations 
were  seen  in  the  commonest  phenomena,  in  the 
streams  and  rivers,  rocks  and  mountains,  vegetation, 
and  forces  of  nature.  But  according  as  men  began  to 
be  more  interested  in  the  vast  cosmic  forces,  so  their 
attention  became  centred  in  such  phenomena  as  the 
sky,  the  earth,  and  the  ocean. 

The  sky  was  personified  as  Anu.  The  Semitic  word 
anu  is  derived  from  the  Sumerian  ana,  which  means 
"heaven".  The  deity  Anu  was  supposed  to  be 
enthroned  in  the  heavens,  and  as  such  was  the  highest 
of  all  gods,  and  king  of  the  gods.  Why  the  centre 
of  the  worship  of  Anu  was  Uruk  is  not  known.  It 
seems  that  the  inhabitants  of  that  city  happened  to  be 
the  first  to  give  prominence  to  the  sky-god.  In  Assyr- 
ian times  the  god  had  a  home  at  Ashur.  Ann's 
worship  can  be  traced  back  to  the  very  beginning  of 
history  in  the  Tigris-Euphrates  valley.  He  was  the 
supreme  dispenser  of  all  events,  especially  of  those 


12  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

which  related  to  the  earth,  and  his  consort  was  Anatu, 
who  was  sometimes  regarded  as  an  earth  goddess. 

Enlil  (or  Ellil)  was  the  "lord  of  lands",  and  the 
personification  of  the  earth.  At  a  very  early  time 
he  gained  great  eminence  in  Babylonia,  for  such 
great  gods  as  Sin  of  Ur  and  Ningirsu  of  Lagash 
were  called  his  sons.  He  is  thought  to  have  been 
the  chief  god  of  the  Sumerian  people,  and  as  Nippur 
may  have  been  the  first  settlement  of  the  Sumerians 
in  southern  Babylonia,  an  explanation  of  Nippur  as 
the  seat  of  this  god  would  be  thus  explained.  He  is 
sometimes  called  the  "great  mountain",  an  epithet 
which  would  point  to  his  origin  among  the  Sumerians 
before  they  migrated  west  from  their  original  moun- 
tain home.  This  would  account  for  the  name  of  his 
temple  in  Nippur,  which  was  E-Kur,  "mountain- 
house",  a  sanctuary  built  probably  on  an  artificial 
mound  to  represent  the  original  home  of  the  god. 

Enlil  has  been  called  the  older  Bel.  His  consort 
was  Ninlil,  called  also  Belit-matate  or  Belit-ile,  "lady 
of  the  lands"  and  "lady  of  the  god",  respectively. 
Being  a  mountain-god,  he  also  associated  with  storms, 
in  the  same  way  that  the  Hebrew  god,  Yahweh,  was 
associated  with  Sinai,  and  was  known  as  a  storm-god. 

The  deity  which  personified  the  great  waters  of  the 
world  was  Ea,  whose  seat  was  at  Eridu  on  the  Persian 
Gulf,  an  appropriate  place  for  a  water-deity.  He  is 
comparable  with  Osiris  of  Egypt.  Being  the  water- 
deity,  and  water  being  associated  with  exorcism,  Ea  be- 
came, at  a  very  early  date,  the  chief  deity  of  exorcism, 
and,  as  father  of  Marduk,  he  retained  that  distinc- 


Idea  of  Cod  13 

tion  until  the  latest  times  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria. 
He  was  consequently  the  god  of  wisdom  also,  and  as 
such  the  adviser  and  helper  of  mankind.  His  consort 
was  Damkina,  a  shadowy  counter-part,  who,  like  most 
Babylonian  goddesses,  never  played  any  important 
role  in  any  form  of  human  and  divine  relationships. 

The  most  attractive  natural  phenomena,  and  the 
most  mysterious,  have  always  been  the  sun  and  the 
moon.  They  have  been  deified  by  all  ancient  races.  In 
Babylonia  the  moon  was  deified  primarily  by  those  who 
lived  near  the  desert,  and  whose  experiences  asso- 
ciated them  with  desert  life.  Nomadic  tribes,  who 
roam  the  desert,  live  continually  in  fear  of  conflict 
with  other  tribes.  Their  time  of  greatest  activity  is 
during  the  night  when  light  is  not  too  intense,  and 
when  they  can  elude  the  pursuit  of  a  possible  enemy. 
But  the  moon's  light  on  such  an  occasion  is  a  veritable 
blessing.  It  furnishes  just  enough  light  to  make 
movement  easy,  but  not  enough  to  make  detection 
probable.  Hence  the  deification  of  the  moon  among 
races  who  are  or  were  nomads.  In  Babylonia  the 
moon  was  worshipped  by  those  who  lived  in  western 
parts,  just  on  the  border  of  the  desert. 

To  those  peoples  who  lived  a  settled,  agricultural 
life,  who  appreciated  the  part  which  the  sun  plays 
in  the  growth  of  the  necessities  of  life,  and  who 
enjoyed  its  warmth,  although  sometimes  dreading  its 
intense  heat,  the  sun  has  always  appeared  as  a  god. 
The  sun  is  the  great  mysterious  being  which  sails 
across  the  heavens  every  day,  returning  each  night 
to  the  beginning  of  its  course. 


14  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

The  sun  was  personified  as  Shamash  by  the  Semites, 
but  as  Ud,  "light",  or  Babbar  by  the  Sumerians.  His 
chief  centre  of  worship  was  at  Sippar,  though  he  was 
also  closely  identified  with  Larsa,  the  latter  being 
the  oldest  residence  of  Shamash.  His  sanctuary  was 
called  E-Babbar,  "shining  house",  and  his  chief  char- 
acteristics were  Justice  and  righteousness,  of  which 
he  was  the  source  and  dispenser. 

Besides  Shamash,  the  sun  was  thought  to  be  mani- 
fested in  the  form  of  other  deities.  The  sky-god  Anu 
was,  in  the  minds  of  his  worshippers  of  Uruk,  a 
solar  deity,  as  also  were  Ninib  at  Nippur,  and  later 
Marduk  at  Babylon  and  Ashur  at  Ashur  in  Assyria. 
In  short  there  grew  up  a  regular  cycle  of  solar  deities. 
At  Lagash,  Ningirsu  was  a  solar  deity,  as  were  also 
Nergal  of  Kutha  and  Zamama  of  Kish,  as  well  as 
the  fire-god  Nusku.  At  a  later  time  priestly  attempts 
were  made  to  differentiate  these  sun-gods.  Ningirsu 
and  Ninib  were  called  sun-gods  of  the  springtime  or 
of  the  morning,  while  Nergal  was  assigned  to  the 
midsummer  or  high  noon. 

Shamash,  the  supreme  judge  and  giver  of  oracles, 
was  not  only  celebrated  as  the  brother  of  Ishtar  and 
the  consort  of  Ai,  but  he  was  also  the  father  of  Kettu, 
"justice",  and  Mesharu,  "rectitude".  With  the  mys- 
tery of  Shamash,  the  god  of  light,  were  bound  up 
the  cleverness  and  fairness  of  justice  and  righteous- 
ness. The  sun  was  full  of  mystery  to  the  early  Baby- 
lonians and  Assyrians.  The  nearer  they  approached 
him  the  more  mysterious  he  became.  But  just  as 
he  had  the  power  lo  penetrate  into  all  corners  and 


Idea  of  Cod  15 

crevices  of  daily  life,  so  his  word  had  the  power  of 
detecting  unfair  dealings  among  men.  The  Baby- 
lonians, who  had  a  genius  for  business,  soon  developed 
that  sense  of  right  proportion  in  human  relationships, 
which  was  the  result  of  deep  insight  into  business 
principles,  and  which  they  associated  with  that  divine 
being  whose  character  it  was  to  bring  everything  to 
the  test  of  the  light  of  day. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sun  was  sometimes  con- 
sidered an  agent  of  destruction.  His  rays  could  warm 
and  comfort,  but  they  could  scorch  and  burn  also. 
And  the  seasons  of  intensest  heat  were  also  those  of 
destruction,  of  lightning  and  thunderstorms.  There 
came,  therefore,  to  be  associated  with  Shamash  and 
other  solar-deities,  gods  of  destructive  storms.  Thus, 
with  Shamash  was  associated  Adad,  who  was  likewise 
associated  with  Anu.  But  the  benificent  character 
of  the  solar-deities  was  that  which  primarily  appealed 
to  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians. 

Just  as  the  sun  was  the  favourite  heavenly  body 
among  agricultural  peoples,  so  the  moon  always  ap- 
pealed to  the  nomad.  On  the  western  border  of  Bab- 
ylonia, in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  great  desert,  the 
moon  was  personified  as  Sin  at  two  great  centres,  Ur 
in  the  south  and  Harran  in  the  north.  At  Ur,  his 
temple  was  called  E-Kishshirgal,  ^Tiouse  of  light",  and 
his  own  Sumerian  name  was  En-Zu,  "lord  of  knowl- 
edge"; among  the  Semites  he  was  also  known  as 
Nannar,  "illumination".  As  lord  of  knowledge,  Sin 
was  the  god  of  oracles,  and  the  well-disposed  father 
of  mankind.    He  was  considered  a  most  powerful  god 


1 6  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

from  the  beginning  of  his  career,  for  Shamash  was 
called  his  son  and  Ishtar  was  his  daughter.  His 
consort  was  Ningal,  "the  great  lady",  "the  queen". 

Powerful  as  Sin  was  he  never  gathered  around 
him  a  cycle  of  di\^ne  beings  as  did  Shamash.  He 
was  inclined  to  keep  his  own  councils  and  jealously 
to  watch  for  the  allegiance  of  his  own  worshippers. 
He  is  primarily  interesting  to  modern  students  be- 
cause of  his  chief  cities  Ur  and  Harran,  both  of 
which  are  associated  with  the  name  of  the  Hebrew 
patriarch,  Abraham,  and  especially  because  of  the 
effect  which  his  cult  had  upon  the  Hebrew  god, 
Yahweh,  who  was  associated  with  Sinai,  the  mountain 
of  Sin,  and  whose  relationship  with  the  followers  of 
Sin  has  left  its  lasting  mark  not  only  upon  Judaism 
but  upon  Christianity  as  well.  Our  custom  of  divid- 
ing time  into  weeks  of  seven  days  each  is  eloquent 
testimony  to  the  power  and  influence  of  the  ancient 
Babylonian  god  Sin.  And  not  only  in  this  particular 
matter  but  in  many  other  ways  our  modern  culture 
bears  not  a  few  marks  of  Babylonian  moon-worship. 

Because  of  Ishtar's  identification  with  the  star 
Venus,  the  goddess  should  be  discussed  here,  although 
she  was  probably  at  first  a  personification  of  fertility 
in  human,  animal,  and  plant  life.  As  such  she  be- 
came the  great  mother-goddess.  She  always  main- 
tained an  independent  existence.  Her  oldest  seat  was 
Uruk,  though  she  was  associated  with  many  other 
places  during  her  career,  such  as  Akkad,  Nineveh,  Ar- 
bela,  and  Kidmurru.  As  Nana  she  is  called  the 
daughter  of  Anu,  but  she  is  also  known  as  the  daugh- 


Idea  of  Cod  1  7 

ter  of  Sin.  This  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  in 
her  character  were  absorbed  other  deities,  and  this  is 
precisely  what  happened.  In  fact,  she  absorbed  all 
other  goddesses  in  the  pantheon,  becoming  the  goddess 
par  excellence.  In  Assyria  she  became  the  consort  of 
Ashur. 

Having  absorbed  many  other  goddesses,  Ishtar  was 
possessed  of  many  attributes.  She  was  associated  with 
Gilgamesh,  a  solar  deity,  and  her  lover  was  Tammuz, 
a  personification  of  the  sun  of  springtime.  As  the 
great  mother-goddess,  she  was  associated  with  the  fer- 
tility of  nature  and  of  man,  and  became  the  goddess  of 
love,  and  of  sexual  impulse.  In  her  character  of  love- 
goddess  her  fame  and  worship  spread  to  the  land  of  the 
Hittites,  as  well  as  to  Phoenicia,  where  she  was  known 
as  Ashtart,  to  Canaan,  where  she  was  called  Ash- 
toreth,  and  to  far-off  Greece  and  Eome,  where  she 
was  worshipped  under  the  familiar  name  of  the  Mater 
Magna. 

In  Assyria,  especially,  she  became  the  patron  of 
battles,  as  was  her  Assyrian  consort  Ashur.  And  as 
the  war-like  Ishtar  her  symbol  was  the  lion.  She  was 
also  symbolized  by  the  dove,  but  this  was  in  her 
character  as  goddess  of  justice  and  righteousness,  the 
goddess  "judging  the  cause  of  man  with  justice  and 
righteousness".  In  this  role  she  was  associated  with 
all  that  is  ethically  true,  being  commemorated  in 
hymns  and  psalms  with  considerable  ethical  content. 
Thus  she  is  addressed  by  a  penitent  who  says : 

"I,  thy  servant,  full  of  sighs,  call  upon  thee; 
The  fervent  prayer  of  him  who  has  sinned  do  thou  accept. 


1 8  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

If  thou  lookest  upon  a  man,  that  man  lives. 

O  all-powerful  mistress  of  mankind, 

Merciful  one,  to  whom  it  is  good  to  turn,  who  hears  sighs ! " 

The  most  powerful  Bab^donian  god  was  Marduk, 
the  city-god  of  Babylon.  He  was  originally  a  clan- 
god,  but  when  his  people  developed  Babylon  to  the 
supreme  place  in  Babylonia,  Marduk,  from  being  a 
comparatively  obscure  deity,  became  the  head  of  the 
pantheon.  Consequently,  there  arose  a  tendency  to 
group  all  gods  around  him,  and  to  ascribe  to  him  the 
attributes  of  such  great  gods  as  Enlil,  Ea,  Shamash, 
Nergal,  Adad,  and  Sin.  His  power  became  so  supreme 
that  the  ceremony  of  "taking  the  hand  of  Marduk" 
was  essential  to  a  candidate  for  the  throne  of  Baby- 
lonia. 

Marduk  was  a  solar  deity,  and  son  of  Ea  of  Eridu. 
His  temple  in  Babylon  was  E-sagila,  "lofty  house", 
and  his  wife  was  Sarpanit.  The  neighbouring  god  of 
Borsippa,  Nabu,  though  himself  very  powerful,  be- 
came Marduk's  son.  According  as  Marduk  became 
more  and  more  powerful  and  influential,  so  he  usurped 
the  place  of  other  deities  and  subordinated  them 
and  their  rights  to  himself.  From  Nabu  he  took  over 
the  attribute  of  "arbiter  of  destiny";  he  became  the 
"healer"  of  mankind  instead  of  Ea;  he  assumed  the 
role  of  creator  god  instead  of  Enlil ;  and  prayers  and 
hymns  were  interpolated  and  glossed  in  order  to  give 
him  the  greater  glory.  He  became  the  lord,  Bel,  pa?- 
excellence,  his  consort  being  named  Belit,  and  the 
great  New  Year  feast  became  his,  making  him  the 


Idea  of  God  19 

lord  and  giver  of  life,  the  sun,  from  whom  and  in 
whom  all  things  exist. 

Nabu  was  the  neighbour  of  Marduk,  the  god  of 
Borsippa,  and  was  much  more  powerful  and  influ- 
ential before  than  after  the  rise  of  Babylon.  His 
temple  was  E-zida,  "house  of  wisdom",  and  his  eon- 
sort  was  Tashmit,  though  Nana  and  Nisaba  were  also 
associated  with  him  in  that  capacity. 

Although  a  god  of  vegetation,  his  chief  attribute 
was  that  of  arbiter  of  destinies.  He  was  the  god  of 
wisdom,  of  writing,  and  of  prophecy,  and  it  is  prob- 
able that  he  was  so  closely  associated  with  wisdom, 
as  an  element  in  prophecy,  that  his  name  penetrated 
into  western  Semitic  lands  and  became  the  title  of 
those  men  in  Israel  who  were,  previous  to  the  time  of 
Samuel,  called  seers.  The  Hebrew  word  for  prophet, 
nabi,  is  most  likely  to  be  traced  to  the  name  of  this 
god. 

Ninib,  or  as  his  name  is  probably  now  to  be  read, 
Ninurasa,  was  the  god  of  Nippur,  the  first-born  of 
Enlil,  the  great  physician  and  god  of  healing,  and  the 
god  of  the  chase.  His  consort  was  Gula.  He  was 
especially  connected  with  war,  as  the  "mighty  hero", 
and  personified  the  spirit  of  battle  and  conquest. 

Nergal  was  the  god  of  Kutha.  His  temple  was  E- 
shitlam,  and  his  consort  was  Ereshkigal.  Originally  a 
vegetation  god,  he  became  the  benevolent  protector 
of  the  fields.  But  he  is  famous  as  a  god  of  plague  and 
fever,  similar  to  the  pestilence-god  Ira,  and  especially 
as  a  war-god.  When  he  married  Ereshkigal,  queen 
of  the  underworld,  he  became  god  of  the  dead  and 


20  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

of  their  realm.  As  a  result  of  this,  his  city,  Kutha, 
became  a  poetic  designation  of  the  great  gathering- 
place  of  the  dead,  and  his  s}Tiibol  was  the  fierce  lion, 
greedy  for  human  victims. 

ISTusku  was  a  god  of  light,  and  was  usually  asso- 
ciated with  Enlil  of  Nippur,  though  he  was  also 
knowTi  as  son  of  Sin  at  Harran.  As  light  or  heat 
god  he  was  the  destroyer  of  all  evil,  and  the  promo- 
ter of  all  good.  His  counterpart  was  Gibil  (or 
Girru),  a  personification  of  fire,  and  god  of  the  smith- 
craft and  of  holy  sacrificial  fire.  His  province  was 
to  destroy  e%dl  by  means  of  purifying  fire.  Both  gods, 
because  of  their  association  with  purifying  and  de- 
stroying fire,  were  ethical  in  character. 

Tammuz  holds  an  unique  position  among  the  great 
Babylonian  gods.  His  Sumerian  name  is  Dumuzi, 
"real  child",  but  an  older  name  made  him  Dumuzi- 
zuab,  "real  child  of  the  watery  deep".  As  such  he 
was  associated  with  Ea  of  Eridu,  and  became  identi- 
fied with  all  green  plant-growth  and  with  spring,  the 
season  of  beginning  of  vegetation.  In  fact,  he  became 
the  god  who  revives  in  spring  and  dies  in  summer, 
like  the  Egyptian  Osiris.  With  him  were  asso- 
ciated festivals  of  mourning  and  festivals  of  joy,  for 
his  death  and  resurrection.  He  was  never  intimately 
associated  with  any  one  centre,  for  he  became  pop- 
ular and  democratic,  even,  in  a  sense,  an  universal 
god  in  Babylonia.  With  him  was  associated  Ishtar 
the  great  mother-goddess,  who  personified  fertilization. 
He  was  her  husband  and  lover  both,  and  with  them 
was  connected  his  sister  Geshtinanna,  who  plays  a 


Idea  of  Cod  21 

similar  part  to  that  taken  by  Nephthys  in  Egypt. 
His  cult  became  most  popular  and  extended  to  Israel, 
where  it  was  very  prominent  at  the  time  of  Ezekiel. 
His  worship  might  have  become  very  powerful  and 
enduring  if  there  had  been  similar  conditions  to  those 
in  Egypt,  which  would  have  served  as  soil  in  which 
the  seed  could  have  grown.  But  the  Babylonians  were 
a  sterner  people  than  the  Eg^^ptians,  to  whom  the  joy- 
ful note  in  the  character  of  Tammuz  could  not  make  a 
lasting  appeal;  and  they  had  never  developed  a  con- 
ception of  the  future  which  was  capable  of  rendering 
the  Tammuz-resurrection  idea  influential,  necessary, 
and  attractive. 

There  were  many  other  Babylonian  gods,  each  of 
whom  was  connected  with  some  place  or  person.  They 
were  so  nmnerous  that  two  general  terms  were  applied 
to  them,  namely,  the  Igigi,  or  earth-deities,  and  the 
Anunnaki,  or  heaven-gods.  It  is  felt  by  some  students 
of  Babylonian  and  Hebrew^  religion  that  even  the  god 
of  Israel,  Yahweh,  was  for  some  time  at  least  asso- 
ciated with  the  Babylonian  pantheon,  his  name  being 
found  in  such  combinations  as  Ya-u-um-ilu  of  the 
Hammurapi  period  and  Ya-u-bani  of  the  Kassite  pe- 
riod ;  the  former  being  equivalent  in  constmction  and 
meaning  to  the  name  Elijah,  "Yahweh  is  my  god"; 
and  the  latter  to  the  name  Asahiah,  "whom  Yahweh 
created". 

Assyria  inherited  the  religion  of  Babylonia,  although 
she  breathed  into  it  her  national  warlike  character, 
and  her  pantheon  coincided  with  that  of  Baby- 
lonia, except  in  the  case  of  Ashur  and  Adad.    Ashur 


22  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

was  a  solar  deity,  and  patron-god  of  the  city  of  Ashur, 
where  his  cult  can  be  traced  to  a  very  primitive 
time.  The  antiquity  of  Ashur's  settlement  in  Ashur 
is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  when  x\nu  was  recognized 
there  with  Ashur,  he  was  god  of  Uruk.  In  fact,  a 
common  etymology  connected  Ashur  with  Anu,  by 
deriving  the  name  Ashur  from  An-shar.  From  the 
first,  Ashur  became  head  of  the  Assyrian  pantheon, 
around  whom,  as  around  Marduk  in  Babylon,  all  the 
gods  were  grouped.  All  roles  of  the  great  Babylonian 
gods  were  ascribed  to  him  and  a  creation  myth  arose, 
a  trace  of  which  still  survives,  in  which  Ashur  is  the 
creator.  The  two  great  gods  Ashur  and  Marduk  were 
supreme  in  their  own  political  and  religious  spheres, 
and  became  rivals  only  when  Babylonia  gave  the 
Assyrians  trouble.  Then  the  statue  of  Marduk  was 
carried  off  to  Assyria,  by  Sennacherib,  who  besieged 
and  destroyed  Babylon  in  689  B.  C.  But  when  Ash- 
urbanipal  came  to  the  throne  he  returned  the  statue 
from  Nineveh  to  Babylon  and  "took  the  hand  of 
Bel". 

The  Assyrians  were  a  warlike  people,  and  Ashur 
their  god  became  primarily  a  war-god.  He  was  sjm- 
bolized  by  a  winged-disk,  with  a  man  with  a  bow  and 
arrow  within  the  disk.  His  solar  character  is  indicated 
by  the  disk ;  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  his  cult 
was  devoid  of  statues,  although  there  is  no  evidence 
that  it  was  more  spiritual  than  that  of  Baby- 
lonian gods.  His  supreme  aloneness  in  Assyria  is 
due  to  the  great  unity  of  the  country,  geographically 
and  politically,  where  he  had  no  rival,  and  to  the  fact 


Idea  of  Cod  23 

that  the  Assyrians  were  almost  always  absorbed  in 
war  and  conquest,  and  Ashur  was  their  great  leader. 

But  other  deities  were  recognized  and  worshipped, 
chiefly  Sin,  Shamash,  Adad,  Marduk,  Nabu,  Ishtar, 
Ninib,  Nergal,  Nusku,  as  well  as  the  three  great  gods 
Anu,  Enlil,  and  Ea. 

The  other  great  Assyrian  god  was  Adad  or  Eam- 
man,  a  god  of  storms  and  rains.  He  gave  rains  in 
time  of  drought,  and  was,  accordingly  a  beneficent 
deity;  but  he  also  withheld  rain  and  brought  on 
drought  and  famine,  and  was,  therefore,  a  god  of 
destruction  also.  He  had  no  special  place  of  worship 
in  Assyria,  being  a  foreign  god,  who  came  from  the 
west  lands,  although  he  shared  a  sanctuary  with  Anu 
at  Ashur,  called  the  Anu-Adad  temple.  He  was  sym- 
bolized by  the  thunderbolt  and  by  an  ox,  types  of  his 
strength  and  character  as  a  weather-god;  he  was  in 
many  ways  the  counterpart  of  Enlil;  and  his  wife 
was  Shala. 

The  goddess  Ishtar  retained  her  power  and  popu- 
larity in  Assyria.  She  was  closely  associated  with 
Ashur,  as  war-goddess,  and  was  differentiated  in  a 
threefold  way  as  Ishtar  of  Nineveh,  of  Arbela,  and 
of  Kidmurru.  This  threefold  differentiation  w^as 
probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  name  Ishtar  had 
become  a  generic  term  for  goddess,  and  was  con- 
sequently ascribed  to  different  deities.  This  would 
be  all  the  more  probable  when  we  consider  the  fact 
that  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  goddesses  were  never 
more  than  shadowy  counterparts  of  the  gods,  with 
the  exception  of  just  the  same  goddess,  whose  name 


24  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

became  a  designation  of  all  goddesses.  That  is^,  when- 
ever a  goddess,  such  as  those  of  Nineveh,  Arbela, 
and  IvidniTirru,  became  powerful,  they  adopted  the 
name  Ishtar,  as  symbol  of  independence  and  power. 

The  other  goddesses  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria 
remained  from  first  to  last  mere  reflections  of  their 
consorts.  Such  were,  for  example,  Ninlil,  Ningal, 
Damkina,  Shala,  Sarpanit,  Tashit,  Antum,  Gula,  and 
Ereshkigal,  consorts  of  Enlil,  Sin,  Ea,  Adad,  Marduk, 
Nabu,  Anu,  Xinib,  and  Nergal,  respectively. 

The  Neo-Babylonian  empire  possessed  a  national 
unity  and  character  that  was  altogether  unknown 
in  early  Babylonia.  As  a  result,  everything  centred 
around  the  national  god  Marduk,  although  there  were 
other  gods.  It  was  a  period  of  national  consciousness, 
and  the  ideal  was  the  greatness  of  the  past.  This 
resulted  in  a  great  religious  revival,  and  an  attempt 
to  imitate  the  past  in  art  and  culture.  It  was  not  un- 
like the  Saite  age  in  Egypt,  and  resulted  in  the  same 
political  impotency.  Because  Nabonidus  was  more 
interested  in  archaeology  and  the  past,  Babylon  fell 
an  easy  prey  to  the  more  modern  and  alert  Cyrus. 

When  Jacob  said,  "If  God  will  keep  me  in  the  way 
that  I  go  and  will  give  me  bread  to  eat  and  raiment  to 
put  on,  so  that  I  come  again  to  my  father's  house  in 
peace,  then  shall  Yahweh  be  my  God,"  he  was  merely 
being  true  to  the  early  Semitic  ideal.  Each  man  re- 
served the  right  to  approach  his  god  on  any  and  all  oc- 
casions. The  gods  were  to  be  worshipped  and  appealed 
to,  nor  did  any  undue  fear  or  dread  hold  the  Babylo- 
nians and  Assyrians  back  from  the  exercise  of  these 


Idea  of  Cod  25 

rights.  In  fact  each  man  had  a  personal  god,  and 
called  himself  the  "son  of  his  god",  duniu  dingir-ra-ni, 
or  mar  ili-su.  Sometimes  a  god  would  desert  his  cli- 
ent, and  then  demons  would  come  and  attack  the  man. 
And  so  the  earnest  desire  of  each  person  was  to  keep 
on  good  terms,  especially  with  his  patron-deity,  in 
order  to  insure  his  continual  protection. 

In  the  early  Sumerian  period,  between  about  3200 
and  2800  B.  C,  there  was  no  national  religion.  The 
national  unit  was  the  city-state,  and  each  city-state 
had  its  own  chief  god,  with,  sometimes,  other  divine 
adherents.  There  was,  however,  a  tendency  to  recog- 
nize any  god  who  became  very  powerful;  thus,  be- 
cause of  the  greatness  and  power  of  Nippur,  its  god, 
Enlil,  became  very  prominent,  and  was  widely  rec- 
ognized and  worshipped.  Nevertheless,  Enlil  never 
became  a  national  god.  Each  centre  of  organized 
government  had  its  own  great  god — Enki  (Ea)  at 
Eridu,  Nannar  (Sin)  at  Ur,  Anu  and  Nana  (Ishtar) 
at  Uruk,  Enlil  at  Nippur,  Nergal  at  Kutha,  and 
Zamama  at  Kish. 

During  the  first  Akkadian  or  Semitic  period,  from 
about  2800  to  2400  B.  C,  there  arose  a  tendency 
to  systematize  theological  thinking.  The  Sumerians 
never  seemed  inclined  to  systematization.  They  were 
content  to  live  in  small  isolated  groups,  and  to  think 
in  an  isolated  theological  way.  But  the  Semites  were 
different.  They  had  the  genius  of  democratic  amal- 
gamation. The  theological  result  was  an  attempt  to 
relate  the  gods  one  to  another.  This  took  shape  in 
the  formulation  of  divine  triads,  the  first  probably 


26  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

being  Anu,  Enlil,  and  Enki  (Ea),  but  with  further 
organization  a  double  triad  was  created;  namely,  one 
centring  in  Uruk  and  Nippur,  resulting  in  Anu, 
Ninib,  Enlil  (later  Ea,  Enlil,  Ninib),  and  the  second 
centring  in  Eridu,  resulting  in  Ea,  Nabu,  Marduk 
(later,  Ea,  Marduk,  Nabu).  In  very  ancient  times 
there  may  have  been  a  duad,  such  as  Anshar  and 
Kishar,  god  of  the  upper  and  god  of  the  lower  region, 
but  this  is  doubtful,  and  may  be  later  speculation. 

With  the  increase  of  Sumerian  power  during  the 
dynasties  of  Ur  and  Nisin,  from  about  2400  to  2100 
B.  C,  theological  speculation  and  organization  again 
became  dormant,  but  with  the  rise  of  the  First  Dy- 
nasty of  Babylon,  about  2100  B.  C,  a  Semitic  race 
of  rulers,  theological  organization  again  came  into  its 
own.  Other  triads  were  now  constructed,  the  chief 
being,  Ea,  Marduk,  Nabu ;  Ea  being  the  father,  Mar- 
duk the  son,  and  Nabu  the  grandson.  Under  the 
influence  of  the  same  impulse,  triads  sprang  up  all 
over  the  land.  Thus,  at  Haran,  Sin  became  the  head 
of  a  divine  family.  Sin,  Ningal,  Ishtar,  the  third 
member  being  sometimes  Nusku.  This  triad  became 
popular  in  the  reign  of  Hammurapi,  as  Sin,  Shamash, 
Ishtar,  due  to  astrological  speculation. 

It  was  during  the  First  Babylonian  Dynasty  that 
the  heavens,  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  were  closely 
studied,  and  there  arose  a  school  of  priestly  astrologers 
or  astronomers.  The  sun  was  Shamash,  the  moon  Sin, 
and  the  star  Venus  was  Ishtar.  This  resulted  in  the 
triad,  Shamash,  Sin,  and  Ishtar.  The  priests  thought 
they  had  discovered  a  close  link  between  the  move- 


Idea  of  Cod  27 

ments  going  on  in  the  heavens  and  occurrences  on 
earth.  This  led  to  an  identification  of  the  chief  deities 
with  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  to  assignment  of  the 
seats  of  all  the  divine  beings  to  heaven.  Besides  the 
identification  of  Shamash,  Sin,  and  Ishtar,  with  the 
sun,  moon,  and  Venus,  Marduk  was  identified  with 
Jupiter,  Nergal  with  Mars,  Nabu  with  Mercury,  and 
Ninib  with  Saturn.  The  old  triad  Anu,  Enlil,  Enki 
(Ea)  took  on  new  life  as  Anu,  Bel,  Ea,  the  power- 
ful heaven-god,  the  earth-god,  and  the  water-god, 
respectively. 

The  priests  proceeded  to  further  elaboration,  using 
popular  belief  in  the  dependence  of  earthly  circum- 
stances upon  heavenly  phenomena,  and  developed  a 
regular  system  of  astrology,  and  an  elaborate  method 
of  divining  the  future.  Even  liver  divination,  which 
will  be  described  in  another  place,  the  oldest  form  of 
divination,  was  brought  into  connection  with  this  as- 
trological system.  Ea  and  his  son  Marduk  became  the 
great  lords  of  divination  and  incantation,  and  all  signs 
in  the  heavens  as  well  as  on  the  earth  were  referred  to 
them. 

This  whole  priestly  system  of  astrology  is  thus  com- 
paratively late.  There  is  no  evidence  at  all  that 
Marduk,  Nabu,  Ninib,  and  Nergal  were  originally 
connected  with  the  stars,  nor  is  there  any  convincing 
evidence  that  the  astral  idea  reached  back  as  far  as 
Sumerian  times.  Astrology  grew  gradually  but  stead- 
ily, but  became  to  a  large  extent  official,  for  there 
is  no  proof  that  the  fortunes  of  individuals  were  fore- 
told from  the  study  of  the  stars  till  Greek  times. 


28  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

N'or  did  astrology  pass  from  a  purely  religious  dis- 
cipline to  a  scientific  study  till  the  Neo-Babylonian 
and  Persian  periods. 

The  favourite  triad  of  the  Kassite  period,  lasting 
till  1750  B.  C,  was  Sin,  Shamash,  Ishtar.  The 
Assyrians  did  not  lay  any  emphasis  upon  the  formu- 
lation of  triads,  for  they  were  sufficiently  confident 
in  their  god  Ashur.  In  them,  as  Semites,  we  see  the 
power  of  concentration  at  its  highest,  except  in  later 
days  in  Israel.  Ashur  was  not  the  only  god,  but  he 
was  all  about  whom  it  was  necessary  to  worry.  Other 
gods  were  his  assistants.  He  was  the  lord  and  mas- 
ter, the  protector,  and  leader  of  his  people.  But  the 
Neo-Babylonians  retained  their  triad  which  usually 
took  the  form  of  Sin,  Shamash,  Adad ;  Sin,  Shamash, 
Ishtar;  or  Nergal,  Adad,  Ishtar.  Their  pantheon, 
however,  remained  very  large,  the  chief  deities  being 
Marduk,  Nabu,  Ishtar,  Shamash,  and  Sin. 

The  ideal  at  all  times  has  been  to  make  things 
according  to  the  pattern  in  the  mount.  The  perfect 
workman  needs  a  perfect  pattern.  All  things,  before 
they  are  brought  into  being,  exist  in  the  mind  of  the 
gods.  The  perfect  workman  translates  them  into 
material  realities.  But  the  converse  has  always  been 
true  with  the  seekers  after  God.  The  pattern  of  God 
has  been  found  in  the  idealism  of  man.  Gods  have 
ever  been  created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  men. 
The  gods  were  thus  enlarged  human  beings,  to  whom 
were  ascribed  human  actions,  except  that  there  was 
always  a  tendency  to  ascribe  the  best  to  them.  They 
were  ordinarily  considered  invisible  and  more  mighty 


Idea  of  Cod  29 

^  than  mankind,  otherwise  they  were  not  sharply  differ- 

entiated in  attributes  and  characteristics  from  men. 
They  had  wives,  sons,  and  daughters,  and  were  born 
and  died  just  like  mortals.  In  short  the  gods  were 
thoroughly  anthropomorphic,  and  the  product  of 
human  imagination. 

But  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  ascribed  the 
best  they  knew  to  the  gods.  Thus  the  gods  were  holy, 
righteous,  pure,  faithful,  just,  truthful,  piteous,  and 
merciful,  according  to  the  highest  current  conceptions 
of  these  ideas.  Their  abodes  were  places  of  holiness ; 
they  were  the  authors  of  law ;  they  directed  mankind, 
and  determined  its  destiny;  they  loved  peace;  and 
they  cursed  and  destroyed  the  wicked.  They  were 
not,  however,  even  in  those  times,  considered  abso- 
lutely perfect.  The  doing  of  wrong  and  evil  was 
ascribed  to  them,  and  they  were  considered  subject 
to  repentance. 

The  people  felt  themselves  directly  dependent  upon 
the  gods,  and  divine  worship  played  an  important 
role.  Temples  were  built  and  offerings  were  con- 
stantly made. 

It  is  probable  that  the  holiness  ascribed  to  the  gods 
may  have  been  partly  ritual  and  partly  ceremonial; 
yet  as  far  as  the  people  understood  true  moral  holi- 
ness, so  they  ascribed  it  to  their  gods.  The  oath, 
for  example,  was  sacred.  It  was  a  guarantee  of  truth, 
and  as  such  was  taken  in  the  name  of  the  gods. 

The  gods  could  always  be  counted  upon  to  be  pro- 
pitious to  their  suppliants.  They  were  the  hearers  of 
prayers ;  they  gave  "waters  of  freedom" ;  and  bestowed 


30  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

care   upon   pious   deeds;   they   were    the   source   of 
righteousness ;  and  they  loved  to  bless  their  own. 

Above  everything  else  the  Babylonians  and  Assyr- 
ians loved  to  think  of  their  gods  as  righteous  and 
true.  From  the  time  of  Sargon  to  that  of  Ashurbani- 
pal,  kings  delighted  in  the  title  shar  misharim,  king 
of  righteousness,  and  took  pleasure  in  ascribing  that 
attribute  to  all  the  gods,  and  especially  to  Shamash 
and  Adad.  They  themselves  gave  directions  to  "hate 
evil  and  love  right",  and  ascribe  the  same  desire  to 
the  gods.  Of  course,  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
words  may  not  always  have  the  same  content  as  our 
words  "righteousness"  and  "truth",  but  the  words 
kittu  and  misharu,  which  we  render  by  "righteousness" 
and  "truth",  are  derived  from  kanu,  "to  be  firm",  and 
esliem,  "to  be  straight",  respectively;  and,  judging 
from  what  was  considered  "right"  and  "true",  or  Icittu 
and  misharu,  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that 
the  standard  was  very  high.  This  we  shall  show  in 
the  chapter  on  Morals. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  were  polytheists, 
or  at  most  henotheists.  They  believed  in  the  existence 
of  innumerable  gods  and  goddesses,  all  of  whom  pos- 
sessed superhuman  power  and  knowledge,  but  none  of 
whom  were  omniscient  or  omnipotent.  Each  social 
group  believed  its  own  chief  deity  to  be  the  greatest. 
This  is  what  is  called  henotheism.  But  monotheism, 
the  belief  in  one  universal  god,  was  never  reached  by 
the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  much  less  ethical 
monotheism,  the  belief  in  one  universal,  righteous, 
and  holy  god. 


Idea  of  Cod  31 

There  is  a  composition  preserved  in  a  Neo-Babylo- 
nian  copy  of  an  older  text,  which  reads  as  follows : 

"Ea  is  the  Marduk  of  canals; 
Ninib  is  the  Marduk  of  strength; 
Nergal  is  the  Marduk  of  war; 
Zamama  is  the  Marduk  of  battle; 
Enlil  is  the  Marduk  of  sovereignty  and  control; 
Nabu  is  the  Marduk  of  possession; 
Sin  is  the  Marduk  of  illumination  of  the  night; 
Shamash  is  the  Marduk  of  judgments; 
Adad  is  the  Marduk  of  rain; 
Tishpak  is  the  Marduk  of  the  host; 
Gal  is  the  Marduk  of  strength; 
Shukamunu  is  the  Marduk  of  the  harvest." 

This  text  has  been  taken  as  a  proof  that  Marduk 
was  considered  by  the  Babylonians  as  the  only  god,  all 
other  deities  being  merely  manifestations  of  him. 
This  might  be  granted  if  we  knew  nothing  more 
about  the  background  of  culture  and  religion  out  of 
which  this  composition  arose.  But,  at  the  same  time 
that  men  were  reading  it,  the  Babylonians  were  offer- 
ing prayers  and  sacrificing  to  innumerable  deities,  all 
distinct,  independent,  and  often  rivals  of  Marduk. 
The  text  does  nothing  more  than  reflect  the  political 
supremacy  of  Marduk,  and  remind  us  that  Marduk 
was  the  greatest  of  all  Babylonian  gods  from  the  time 
of  Hammurapi  on.  It  may  even  be  said  to  indicate  a 
tendency  toward  that  which  resulted  in  a  conception 
of  true  monotheism,  but  the  tendency  did  not  go  very 
far. 

There  is  probably  to  be  found  in  Assyria  a  pro- 
founder  understanding  of  the  idea  of  monopoly  in  the 
god-head  than  in  Babjdonia.     Ashur  did  not  stand 


32  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

alone.  There  were  other  deities.  But  Ashur  towered 
so  far  above  the  others;  his  sway  was  so  much  more 
coterminous  with  his  own  country,  at  least;  his  cult 
was  so  much  more  independent  of  external  and  mate- 
rial representations  than  that  of  other  deities ;  and  he 
became  so  much  more  transcendentalized,  at  least  in 
the  minds  of  his  people,  than  was  the  case  with  other 
deities ;  that  if  monotheism  had  been  at  all  developed 
in  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  the  chances  are  that  it 
would  have  occurred  in  the  latter  country.  But  Baby- 
lonians and  Assyrians,  from  the  first  to  the  last,  were 
far  too  nationalistic,  far  too  narrow,  far  too  religiously 
undeveloped,  and  far  too  morally  limited,  to  arrive 
at  any  adequate  idea  of  the  oneness,  perfection, 
omniscience,  and  omnipotence  of  God. 

Eeviewing  the  idea  of  God  as  we  have  found  it 
among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  it  may  be  said 
that  they  continually  lifted  up  their  eyes  unto  the 
hills  from  whence  their  help  came;  they  were  not 
content  with  peering  into  the  valleys,  nor  even  with 
appealing  to  their  fellow-men,  to  nature,  or  to  pleas- 
ure; but  they  felt  the  necessity  of  seeking  help  from 
the  highest  source  of  which  they  were  conscious. 
They  wanted  help  only  from  the  best  and  noblest. 
They  believed  that  the  spirits  which  permeated  all 
natural  phenomena  held  in  their  power  the  destinies 
of  men ;  they  believed  them  to  be  gods,  to  be  endowed 
with  the  highest  qualities  of  which  they  themselves 
were  conscious.  They  pinned  their  faith  to  them  and 
propitiated  them  in  every  possible  manner.  They  loved 
to  think  and  dream  about  them,  about  their  character 


Idea  of  Cod  33 

and  manner  of  living.  They  ascribed  the  best  they 
knew  to  them.  But  just  as  the  world  in  which  these 
Babylonians  and  Assyrians  lived  consisted  of  various 
and  diverse  national  groups,  so  there  were  various  and 
diverse  gods.  They  had  never  arrived  at  an  idea  of 
the  world,  sufficiently  unified  to  lead  them  to  any  idea 
of  the  unification  in  the  being  of  the  gods.  They  de- 
veloped a  remarkable  material  civilization;  their  art 
and  architecture,  their  language  and  literature,  are 
unsurpassed,  in  many  ways,  by  those  of  any  ancient, 
and  many  modem  peoples ;  and  their  commercial  and 
legal  ideas  and  institutions  have  become  the  common 
heritage  of  modern  civilization.  A  higher  conception 
of  legal  justice  has  never  been  developed  anywhere. 
The  Code  of  Hammurapi,  the  innumerable  contracts, 
and  the  supremely  just  commercial  transactions  which 
have  been  preserved  to  us  from  Babylonian  and  Assyr- 
ian civilization  would  put  many  of  our  modern  Wes- 
tern institutions  to  shame.  But,  contrary  to  Eenan's 
famous  dictum,  they  were  not  monotheists,  nor  were 
they  physically  constructed,  geographically  placed, 
mentally  equipped,  morally  endowed,  or  spiritually  in- 
spired to  arrive  at  such  a  conception.  Culturally  they 
were  highly  talented,  commercially  and  legally  they 
were  unsurpassed  in  the  ancient  world,  but  their  moral 
and  religious  horizon  was  considerably  limited.  The 
gift  of  monotheism  to  humanity  came  from  another 
source — a  politically  insignificant,  but  religiously  in- 
spired people — but  the  world's  art  and  architecture, 
commerce  and  law  are  deeply  indebted  to  the  genius 
of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians. 


Ill 


THE  IDEA  OF  MAN  IN  BABYLONIA 
AND  ASSYRIA 

When  Balak  wanted  Balaam  to  curse  the  Israelites 
who  were  approaching  the  domain  of  Moab,  he  tried 
to  cheat  himself  into  thinking  that  if  Balaam  did 
not  see  the  whole  of  the  forces  of  Israel  he  would  be 
induced  to  venture  a  malediction.  And  so  Balak  said 
to  Balaam,  "Come,  I  pray  thee,  with  me  unto  another 
place,  from  whence  thou  mayest  see  them.  Thou 
shalt  see  but  the  utmost  part  of  them,  and  shalt  not 
see  them  all ;  and  curse  me  them  from  thence."  But  it 
was  a  vain  expedient.  The  blessing  came  still  pour- 
ing forth  more  richly  than  before.  The  first  thing 
which  strikes  one  in  this  story  is  the  narrowness  of 
Balak's  vision  and  its  lack  of  absoluteness.  There  is 
an  absolute  truth  about  everything,  something  which 
is  certainly  the  fact  about  that  thing,  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  what  people  may  think  about  it.  No  man 
on  earth  may  know  that  fact  correctly — but  the  fact 
exists.  It  lies  behind  all  blunders  and  all  partial 
knowledge,  a  calm,  sure,  unfound  certainty,  like  the 

34 


Idea  of  Man  35 

great  sea  beneath  the  waves,  like  the  quiet  sky  behind 
its  clouds.  The  infinite  God  knows  it.  It,  and  the 
possession  of  it,  makes  the  eternal  difference  between 
perfect  and  partial  knowledge. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  were  Balaks,  not 
intentionally,  but  on  account  of  conditions  and  cir- 
cumstances over  which  they  had  no  control.  In  like 
manner,  all  primitive  peoples  are  Balaks.  The  truth 
of  man  and  the  world  in  which  he  lives  exists,  but 
primitive  man's  understanding  of  it  is  exceedingly 
limited.  Nevertheless,  human  nature  insists  upon 
knowledge  even  though  it  be  limited  and  imperfect. 
The  point  where  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  stood 
gave  but  a  partial  view  of  the  world  and  man.  But 
they  rightly  insisted  upon  the  view,  and  upon  an 
expression  of  it. 

Our  knowledge  of  what  the  Babylonians  and  As- 
syrians believed  about  the  universe  and  the  beginnings 
of  the  race  is  derived  chiefly  from  a  poem  of  about 
a  thousand  lines,  called,  in  the  Babylonian  language, 
Enuma  Elish,  and,  by  modern  students.  The  Epic  of 
Creation;  and  partly  from  the  Greek  writings  of  a 
late  Babylonian  priest,  called  Berossus. 

According  to  them  we  learn  that  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  believed  that  in  the  beginning  there 
existed  a  great  primitive  watery  chaos.  It  consisted 
of  three  elements,  which  were  personified  as  Apsu, 
Tiamat,  and  Mummu,  namely,  father,  mother,  and 
son.  This  chaos  gave  rise  to  Anshar  and  Kishar, 
heaven  and  earth,  the  ancestors  of  the  gods  Anu,  Enlil, 
and  Ea.     Tiamat  quarrelled  with  the  gods.     Open 


36  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

warfare  ensued.  Accordingly,  Tiamat  created  eleven 
monsters  of  chaos,  headed  by  Kingu,  whom  she  made 
her  husband,  and  to  whom  she  entrusted  the  Tablets 
of  Destiny.  Ea  and  Anu  succeeded  in  disposing  of 
Apsu  and  Mummu,  but  were  unable  to  seize  Tiamat. 
Marduk  of  Babylon  then  intervenes  and  offers  his 
services  against  Tiamat,  on  the  condition  that  if 
he  is  victorious  he  be  made  chief  of  the  gods.  This 
was  agreed  upon,  and  Marduk  entered  the  list  against 
Tiamat,  whom  he  soon  vanquished.  According  to 
the  later  form  of  the  story,  Marduk  cut  the  corpse 
of  Tiamat  in  two,  out  of  which  he  made  heaven  and 
earth.  Then  follow  the  several  acts  of  creation,  the 
last  of  which  being  the  creation  of  man.  The  Su- 
merian  version  makes  Aruru,  the  earth-goddess,  the 
creator  of  man.  She  took  the  blood  of  Tiamat  and 
mixed  it  with  earth,  the  result  being  man.  Another 
account  makes  Ishtar  the  creator,  and  still  another 
makes  the  Word  of  Marduk  the  creative  agent.  The 
Epic  of  Creation,  as  we  have  it,  closes  with  a  hymn 
to  Marduk  as  the  creator-god.  This  account  evidently 
arose  after  the  establishment  of  the  supremacy  of 
Babylon  and  its  god,  Marduk.  A  shorter  account, 
and  perhaps  the  earlier,  knows  nothing  of  a  battle 
between  Marduk  and  Tiamat,  but  represents  the  world 
as  rising  out  of  the  ocean  without  conflict  and  in  a 
peaceful  manner. 

Such  were  the  attempts  of  the  early  Babylonians 
to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  world  and  man.  It 
is  imperfect  and  limited,  coming  from  a  point  in  time 
and  place  where  only  a  partial  view  was  possible. 


Idea  of  Man  37 

But  it  was  an  earnest  attempt,  and  as  such  must  be 
respected. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  believed  that  there 
existed  an  order  of  beings  semi-human  and  semi- 
divine.  The  most  important  and  interesting  of  these 
was  Gilgamesh,  whose  exploits  have  been  handed  down 
to  us  in  a  poem  which  we  call  the  Gilgamesh  Epic. 

Gilgamesh  was  a  semi-divine  ruler  of  Uruk.  His 
people  tire  of  him,  and  pray  to  the  earth-goddess 
Arum,  who  creates  Enkidu  (Eabani)  as  a  companion 
for  him,  who  will  entice  him  to  leave  the  city.  Enkidu 
succeeds  in  his  mission,  and  he  and  Gilgamesh  go  on 
an  adventure  to  the  Cedar  Mountain  in  the  East. 
There  Ishtar  dwells  with  her  servant  Humbaba.  En- 
kidu and  Gilgamesh  look  upon  Humbaba  as  unneces- 
sary to  their  plans,  so  they  slay  him.  After  being  rec- 
onciled to  the  death  of  her  bodyguard,  Ishtar  falls  in 
love  with  Gilgamesh,  and  offers  her  hand  in  marriage. 
But  Gilgamesh  refuses.  This  enrages  the  goddess, 
and  she  persuades  Anu  to  create  an  ox  to  do  battle 
with  Gilgamesh;  but  Gilgamesh  with  the  aid  of  En- 
kidu kills  the  ox.  After  this,  Enkidu  makes  the 
mistake  of  taunting  Ishtar  about  her  love  affair  with 
Gilgamesh,  which  results  in  his  death.  Gilgamesh, 
now  left  alone,  bethinks  himself  of  the  hero  who  was 
rescued  from  the  flood,  Utnapishtim,  and  goes  to 
seek  him.  He  passes  over  the  lofty  mountain  Mashu, 
and  crosses  the  great  wild  steppes,  finally  reaching 
the  paradise  of  the  gods,  situated  on  the  shore  of  the 
sea,  where  he  finds  the  goddess  Sabitu  sitting  on  her 
throne.    He  makes  himself  known  to  her  and  relates 


38  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

to  her  his  desires.  She  is  friendly,  and  directs  her 
ferryman  to  row  him  over  the  "water  of  death". 
Finally,  Gilgamesh  reaches  the  abode  of  Utnapishtim, 
who  tells  him  all  about  the  Flood.  While  there, 
Gilgamesh  seeks  and  discovers  the  plant  of  life,  but 
on  his  way  home  from  Utnapishtim  a  serpent  meets 
him  and  snatches  the  plant  away.  Gilgamesh  reaches 
Uruk  a  saddened  man,  but  succeeds  in  getting  into 
touch  with  his  former  companion  Enkidu,  from  whom 
he  learns  about  the  realm  of  the  dead. 

Another  king-story  may  be  seen  in  the  Etana  Myth. 
Etana  is  a  primeval  hero,  and  founder  of  kingship 
on  earth.  He  desires  to  set  up  a  king,  and  applies, 
on  advice  of  Shamash,  to  an  eagle  for  help  to 
bring  from  heaven  a  medical  herb  which  shall  secure 
safe  birth  to  the  expected  king.  The  eagle  consents, 
and  Etana  is  carried  to  heaven,  but  on  their  return 
both  fall  to  the  ground.  However,  the  child  is  safely 
bom  and  becomes  king.  Another  story  tells  about 
ten  primeval  kings  between  the  time  of  Creation  and 
that  of  the  Flood. 

Thus  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  as  well  as 
other  primitive  peoples,  saw  in  kingship  a  link  be- 
tween gods  and  men.  At  first,  the  gods  themselves 
reigned  over  the  men  on  earth,  but  they  were  succeeded 
by  semi-divine  rulers,  who,  in  turn,  were  succeeded 
by  a  line  of  human  kings.  The  same  conception  may 
be  seen  back  of  the  account  of  the  antediluvian  an- 
cestors in  the  Book  of  Genesis. 

The  essential  connection  between  the  life  of  the  gods 
and  the  life  of  man  is  the  gi'eat  truth  of  the  world,  for 


Idea  of  Man  39 

"the  spirit  of  man  is  the  candle  of  the  Lord".  And 
just  as  the  candle  obeys  the  fire,  the  docile  wax  ac- 
knowledging the  subtle  flame  as  its  master,  so  every 
faithful  follower  of  the  gods  gives  them  a  chance 
to  utter  themselves.  There  must  therefore  be  a  cor- 
respondency of  nature  between  the  two,  man  must  be 
in  cordial  obedience  to  the  gods.  The  gods  are  the 
fire  of  the  world,  its  vital  principle,  a  warm,  pervading 
presence  everywhere.  And  of  this  fire  the  spirit  of 
man  is  the  candle.  That  is,  man  is  of  a  nature  which 
corresponds  to  the  nature  of  the  gods,  and  just  so  far 
as  man  is  obedient  to  the  gods,  their  life,  which  is 
spread  throughout  the  universe,  gathers  itself  into 
utterance.  When  the  fire  of  the  gods  has  found  the 
candle  of  the  gods,  the  candle  burns  clearly  and 
steadily,  guiding  and  cheering  instead  of  bewildering 
and  frightening. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  believed  as  firmly 
as  did  the  Hebrews  that  the  blood  thereof  is  the  life 
thereof.  And  when  they  represented  man  as  created 
out  of  the  blood  of  the  gods,  they  meant  that  he 
partook  of  their  life.  The  first  man,  who  was  also 
a  king,  was  semi-divine :  he  was  made  of  earth  mingled 
with  the  blood  of  the  gods.  The  Sumerian  word  for 
soul,  zid,  "rush  of  the  wind",  and  its  Babylonian 
equivalent  napishtu,  "breath",  both  refer  to  the  breath 
as  the  seat  of  the  self,  even  as  the  Hebrews  did,  using 
the  same  word,  nepJiesh,  as  the  Babylonians.  But 
neither  the  Hebrews  nor  the  Babylonians  and  Assyr- 
ians deny  the  current  belief  that  the  life  of  man  was 
in  his  blood. 


40  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

However,  man  was  created  mortal.  It  was  believed 
to  be  possible  to  attain  immortality,  but  only  for  ex- 
ceptional persons,  such  as  Utnapishtim  and  his  wife. 
Adapa  received  from  Ea  a  high  degree  of  wisdom, 
but  not  the  gift  of  immortality.  He  desired  to  attain 
to  eternal  life,  and  would  have  done  so  had  he  eaten 
of  the  food  and  water  of  life  that  were  presented  to 
him  by  Anu.  But,  on  refusing  to  do  so,  he  lost  that 
great  prize.  Immortality  was  a  possession  of  the  gods 
which  they  guarded  with  great  jealousy. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  had  no  theory  of 
the  origin  of  sin.  There  is  nothing  to  be  found  in 
their  literature  w^hich  corresponds  to  the  Paradise 
story  of  the  Old  Testament  or  the  yetzer  theory  of 
later  Judaism.  The  interest  of  these  people  was  prac- 
tical rather  than  metaphysical.  They  recognized  and 
realized  the  existence  of  evil,  and  assumed,  without 
debate,  that  it  came  from  the  world  of  spirits  which 
surrounded  them.  They  would  not  accuse  their  gods 
of  being  the  origin  of  sin ;  but  besides  gods  there  were 
numerous  demons,  spiritual  and  unseen  beings  from 
whom  came  sickness  and  death,  and  to  whom  were 
ascribed  all  evil.  The  "evil  eye"  was  the  malevolent 
glance  of  a  demon.  In  this  respect  they  were  the  fore- 
runners of  Persian  thought.  Gods  could  not  originate 
evil,  man  did  not,  but  the  demons  did.  When  Moses 
descended  from  the  mountain  and  found  that  his 
brother  Aaron  had  made  a  golden  calf,  which  the  peo- 
ple were  worshipping,  he  became  very  angry  with  him 
and  took  the  calf  and  destroyed  it.  Aaron,  smarting 
under  the  severe  reprimand  of  his  brother,  does  his 


Idea  of  Man  41 

*  best  to  shift  the  blame  from  himself  to  something  else 

— the  fire ;  and  he  said  to  Moses  that,  having  taken  the 
gold  and  having  cast  it  into  the  fire,  "there  came  out 
this  calf.  The  tendency  to  shift  blame  and  responsi- 
bility is  a  universal  one;  nor  were  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  immune.  The  blame  for  the  origin 
of  sin  was  shifted  to  the  shoulders  of  demons  and  evil 
spirits. 

These  early  peoples  were  conscious,  however,  of  the 
fact  that  sin  brought  misfortune,  and  they  did  all 
in  their  power  by  way  of  sacrifice,  incantation,  and 
magic  to  remove  it.  The  Flood  is  an  instance  of  mis- 
fortune due  to  sin.  The  gods  behold  the  sinfulness 
of  mankind,  and  decide  to  send  a  flood.  Ea,  the  lover 
of  man,  reveals  the  decision  of  the  gods  to  Utnapish- 
tim,  and  commands  him  to  build  a  ship  for  his  safety 
and  the  safety  of  his  creatures.  Utnapishtim  obeys 
just  in  time,  for  the  flood  breaks  forth,  the  gods  them- 
selves flee  to  heaven  for  protection,  and  the  mother  of 
the  gods  and  Ea  pray  for  a  cessation  of  the  tempest. 
On  the  seventh  day  the  storm  ceases,  and  the  waters 
abate,  and  the  ship  rests  on  Mount  Nasir.  After  seven 
days  more,  Utnapishtim  sends  forth  from  the  ship 
a  dove,  and  then  a  swallow.  Both  return.  Then  he 
sends  forth  a  raven,  which  does  not  return.  Dry  land 
appears,  and  Utnapishtim  disembarks  and  sacrifices 
to  the  gods ;  but  not  to  Enlil  who  brought  on  the  flood, 
and  who  wishes  utterly  to  destroy  mankind. 

The  point  to  be  noted  in  connection  with  the  Flood 
story  is  that  it  was  considered  the  result  of  sin,  for 
all  suffering  resulted  in  sinfulness.     This  was  an 


42  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

accepted  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  dogma.  The  sin 
was  not  necessarily  what  we  call  "moral",  it  was  some 
act  or  deed  which  resulted  in  the  displeasure  of  the 
gods  and  oppression  by  demons.  Demons  sent  sin. 
They  also  sent  punishment.  But  man  was  to  resist 
the  sin  which  was  sent  by  the  demons.  Failure  to 
resist  it  resulted  in  punishment.  But  man  had  the 
necessary  power  of  resistance.  He  possessed  free  will 
and  self  respect.  These  he  never  surrendered.  He 
was  humble  in  the  presence  of  his  gods,  listening  to 
what  they  had  to  say.  He  was  willing  to  prostrate 
himself  before  them,  and  to  signify  his  readiness  to 
receive  what  they  should  tell  him  by  the  complete 
disowning  of  anything  like  worth  or  dignity  in  him- 
self. But  there  is  another  picture  with  another  truth. 
There  comes  a  time  when  a  man  must  stand  on  his 
feet;  not  in  the  attitude  of  humiliation  but  in  the 
attitude  of  self  respect;  not  stripped  of  all  strength, 
and  lying  like  a  dead  man  waiting  for  life  to  be 
given  him,  but  strong  in  the  intelligent  conscious- 
ness of  privilege,  and  standing  alive,  ready  to  coop- 
erate with  the  gods  who  speak  to  him. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  many  a  Babylonian 
and  Assyrian  took  this  attitude  in  the  presence  of  his 
gods,  and  insisted  upon  his  own  dignity.  But  between 
him  and  the  demons  and  evil  spirits,  the  source  of  all 
sin  and  evil,  and  the  bearers  of  punishment  and  suf- 
fering, there  was  an  endless  conflict.  And  the  only 
assurance  of  final  victory  was  in  the  help  and  protec- 
tion of  the  gods. 

Individuality  was  not  greatly  emphasised  in  Baby- 


Idea  of  Man  43 

Ionia  and  Assyria — at  any  rate,  the  average  indi- 
vidual did  not  receive  much  attention  at  the  hands  of 
the  scribe.  The  mass  of  extant  literature  deals  with 
the  people  as  a  whole  or  with  certain  special  individ- 
uals, such  as  the  king  and  the  prince,  the  priest  and 
the  exorcist.  We  know  that  each  man  had  a  personal 
protective  deity,  and  had  developed  a  somewhat  keen 
sense  of  his  relationship  to  his  god,  and  of  his  individ- 
ual right  in  commercial  matters ;  but  what  the  details 
of  his  rights  and  privileges,  his  customs  and  manners, 
his  ambitions  and  ideas,  were,  we  are  unable  to  re- 
construct with  certainty. 

It  is  comparatively  easy,  however,  by  the  aid  of 
legal  and  contract  literature,  to  gain  a  fairly  complete 
view  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  every-day  life.  Ac- 
cordingly, we  find  the  family  to  have  been  the  basis 
of  all  social  life  and  activity,  and  begun  with  the 
marriage  of  two  persons.  Preparatory  to  the  marriage 
it  was  customary  to  draw  up  a  legal  contract;  and, 
before  the  contract  could  be  entered  into,  the  consent 
of  the  parents  was  required.  Without  this  contract 
marriage  was  illegal,  for  "if  a  man  takes  a  wife  and 
does  not  execute  contracts  for  her,  that  wife  is  no 
wife". 

Monogamy  seemed  to  have  been  the  ideal,  and  to 
a  large  extent  the  standard;  but  man  was  permitted 
to  have  as  many  ^dves  as  he  desired.  Concubines 
and  slave-wives  were  very  common  at  all  periods. 
The  marriage  relationship  could  be  interrupted  in 
various  ways,  chiefly  by  divorce.  In  the  earliest 
periods  the  right  of  divorce  belonged  only  to  the  man. 


44  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

but  as  early  as  the   First  Babylonian  Dynasty  the 
woman  also  could  bring  about  a  divorce. 

The  father  was  the  head  of  the  family,  and  at 
all  periods  in  Babylonian  and  Ass3Tian  life  held  all 
kinds  of  extraordinary  powers  over  the  members  of 
his  family,  although  they  were  to  some  extent  re- 
stricted. He  could  divorce  his  wife  at  will,  often 
by  mere  repudiation;  he  could  sell  his  children,  boys 
as  well  as  girls ;  and  he  could  disinherit  any  of  them 
at  will.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  responsible 
for  the  support  of  his  wives  and  children,  and  if  he 
divorce  the  former  or  disinherit  the  latter  he  was 
liable  to  full  or  partial  support  of  them.  He  could 
adopt  children  at  will,  and  name  them  as  his  heirs 
in  case  of  dispute  with  his  own  children.  But  he 
was  generally  kind  and  loving,  and  assumed  the  re- 
sponsibility of  family  life  with  earnestness  and  in 
good  faith. 

The  wife,  on  the  other  hand,  had  certain  rights 
which  she  was  not  slow  in  demanding.  She  could 
repudiate  a  worthless  husband  and  take  her  dowry 
back  to  her  father's  house,  and  if  she  was  viciously 
slandered  she  could  exact  very  severe  penalties. 

Children  owed  definite  duties  to  their  parents,  and 
especially  in  the  case  of  loyalty,  for  which  if  they 
were  found  wanting  they  were  severely  punished. 
The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  abhorred  filial  in- 
gratitude. They  were  very  often  responsible  for  the 
debts  of  their  parents.  But  they  possessed  definite 
rights  of  their  own.  They  could  claim  a  patrimony 
which  proceeded  from  gifts  made  by  the  father,  and 


Idea  of  Man  45 

of  which  they  could  dispose  freely.  If  in  any  way 
they  felt  themselves  unjustly  treated,  they  had  the 
legal  right  to  protest  and  to  make  claims.  Orphans 
were  often  well  provided  for,  there  being  evidence 
that  they  sometimes  received  a  pension  equal  to  the 
mother's  allowance  while  she  was  living. 

Obligations  of  superiors  to  inferiors  and  of  inferiors 
to  superiors  were  not  neglected.  The  ideal  servant 
was  one  who  was  full  of  respect  for  his  master,  and 
who  always  did  what  was  becoming.  Even  the  slave 
had  his  rights,  and  it  was  permissible  for  him  to  enter 
a  lawsuit  against  his  master  and  to  assert  his  rights. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  Urukagina's  reform  shows, 
there  was  often  the  need  of  a  champion  of  the  weak 
against  the  strong,  and  the  fact  that  this  ruler  was 
such  shows  the  keen  realization  of  the  rights  of  the 
inferior  as  against  the  exactions  of  superiors. 

Babylonian  and  Assyrian  society  consisted  of  three 
classes:  the  amelu,  which  included  the  king,  the  chief 
officers  of  state,  and  landed  proprietors ;  the  mushkenu, 
which  included  the  bulk  of  the  subject  population; 
and  the  ardu  or  slave.  At  the  head  stood  the  king 
as  representative  of  the  gods.  In  the  case  of  Ham- 
murapi  we  have  an  example  and  model  of  the  ideal 
king.  From  the  Epilogue  and  Prologue  to  his  Code 
we  are  reminded  that  he  is  "the  perfect  King",  "a 
ruler  who  is  like  a  real  father  to  his  people",  he  was 
the  doer  of  right,  "the  king  of  righteousness",  whose 
"scepter  is  righteousness",  "who  made  justice  prevail 
and  who  ruled  the  race  with  right",  who  "made  right- 
eousness to  shine  forth  on  the  land",  who  "established 


46  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

law  and  justice  in  the  land  and  promoted  the  welfare 
of  the  people",  whose  ideal  was  a  "peaceful  country" 
and  "pure  judgment",  and  who  "brought  about  plenty 
and  abundance".  In  short,  the  king  was  considered 
perfect  and  as  such  was  honoured  with  titles  which 
actually  related  him  to  the  gods.  He  was,  thus,  the 
son  of  the  god,  and  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Ham- 
murapi,  was  supplicated  and  revered  almost  like  a 
god.  Hammurapi  was  undoubtedly  an  exceptional 
king,  who  was  not  only  himself  a  righteous  ruler, 
but  who  also  expressed  the  wish  that  his  successors 
would  be  as  righteous  and  as  vigilant  in  rooting  out 
the  wicked  and  evildoer  from  the  land  as  he  was. 

The  king  was  the  fountain  of  all  law,  and  from  him 
radiated  the  power  which  set  in  motion  the  machinery 
of  the  state.  He  gave  directions  for  the  levying  of 
taxes  and  tribute  and  through  him  the  state  controlled 
business  and  commerce. 

The  king  was  the  champion  of  the  oppressed  in- 
dividual, and  was  ever  active  in  righting  any  wrong 
that  may  have  been  done  to  him.  He  opposed  the 
oppression  of  the  weak  by  the  strong,  and  he  held 
his  officials  to  the  duty  of  observing  the  same  standard 
of  righteousness.  He  set  his  face  against  official  cor- 
ruption, against  greed  in  business,  and  against  rob- 
bery and  theft.  To  assist  him  in  the  administration 
of  the  state  he  created  an  army  of  officials  whose 
benefices  were  inalienable  from  the  official  line. 

The  state  likewise  took  an  interest  in  the  individual, 
and  ransomed  a  man  if  neither  he  himself  nor  the 
temple  could  do  so.     The  state  was  in  such  matters 


Idea  of  Man  47 

an  agent  of  the  king,  just  as  the  temple  was.  This 
interest  was  a  duty  to  which  the  individual  was  fully 
alive.  In  fact,  the  individual  in  Babylonia  and  As- 
syria was  as  much  alive  to  his  personal  interests  as 
at  any  other  period  of  the  world's  history. 

The  individual  though  strictly  classified  was  never- 
theless carefully  guarded  in  his  rights.  Thus  if  a 
rich  man  stole,  the  deed  was  punished  in  the  light 
of  his  riches,  that  is,  he  had  to  pay  more  in  compen- 
sation than  if  a  poor  man  stole.  Yet  if  a  poor  man 
had  nothing  to  pay  for  such  an  offence  he  was  to  be 
put  to  death.  In  like  manner,  the  fine  for  a  quarrel 
between  two  nobles  was  larger  than  if  it  had  been  be- 
tween two  poor  men;  but  it  should  also  be  noticed 
that  if  a  man  of  noble  class  made  an  assault  upon  a 
poor  man  he  was  taxed  less  than  if  the  assault  had 
been  upon  one  of  his  own  class.  If  a  member  of  the 
middle  class  made  an  assault  upon  a  noble  the  assault 
was  punished  by  being  publicly  beaten. 

The  individual  was  treated  in  every  way  as  thor- 
oughly responsible.  He  was  free  to  make  gifts,  with, 
of  course,  the  consent  of  those  interested ;  he  had  the 
right  to  protest  against  injustice;  and  his  slanderer 
was  punished  with  death.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
individual  was  held  responsible  for  his  acts.  A  royal 
official  who  secretly  hired  a  substitute  when  he  was 
sent  on  an  errand  was  put  to  death,  and  the  substitute 
received  the  office.  The  law  was  the  great  safeguard 
and  ruled  that  important  statements  must  be  made 
on  oath  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  and  if  witnesses 
could  not  be  produced  the  man  was  assumed  to  be  a 


48  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

liar.  Even  contracts  to  guard  against  falsehood  were 
drawn  up. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  were  primarily  a 
law-abiding  people.  The  will  of  the  gods  was  ex- 
pressed in  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the  king  was  its 
guardian.  The  law  was  assumed  to  be  righteous,  be- 
cause it  was  so  bound  up  with  the  idea  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  gods.  And  so  it  came  about  that  the 
court  was  usually  the  temple  where  lawsuits  were  tried 
and  contracts  were  made.  And  yet  injustice  was 
sometimes  known  in  the  very  courts  of  law,  although 
whenever  discovered  it  was  punished.  The  judge 
rendered  judgment  according  to  royal  law,  but  once 
the  judgment  was  rendered  it  could  not  be  changed 
without  incurring  severe  punishment.  There  were 
different  grades  of  judges,  but  the  chief  distinction 
was  between  civil  and  temple  judges.  The  former 
could  not  receive  an  affidavit;  this  was  due  to  the  re- 
ligious character  of  the  oath.  Bribery  was  often 
attempted  but  it  was  always  punished.  But  in  case 
a  man  was  not  satisfied  with  the  decision  rendered 
against  him  he  had  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  king. 

Although  the  settlement  of  a  dispute  may  be 
made  out  of  court,  lawsuits  before  legally  constituted 
judges  were  the  rule.  Three  witnesses  were  always 
necessary,  an  oath  was  taken,  and  rewards  and  punish- 
ments directed.  Punishments  were  often  exceedingly 
severe  and  out  of  proportion  to  the  offence.  Thus, 
death  was  the  penalty  for:  perjury  in  a  capital 
suit,  false  accusation  of  killing,  theft  of  things 
belonging  to  the  temple  or  the  palace  of  a  king,  buy- 


Idea  of  Man  49 

ing  property  of  a  man  without  witnesses  or  contracts, 
or  recei\'ing  such  property  on  deposit,  failure  to  pay 
fines  for  theft  or  to  make  restitution,  theft  and  sale 
of  stolen  goods,  false  accusation  of  stealing,  house- 
breaking, brigandage,  theft,  kidnapping  a  free-born 
child,  negligence  if  ending  in  death,  allowing  a  palace 
slave  to  escape  or  sheltering  him,  detaining  an  escaped 
slave,  causing  a  barber  to  mark  a  slave  wrongfully, 
procuring  a  substitute,  in  the  case  of  a  soldier,  fraud 
on  the  part  of  a  district  governor,  oppression,  failure 
of  a  woman  who  sold  wine  to  capture  a  criminal,  open- 
ing a  wine  house  by  a  devotee,  accepting  a  low  tariff 
by  a  wine  woman,  infidelity  and  incest,  remarrying 
on  the  part  of  a  woman  while  her  husband  was  absent, 
repudiation  of  her  husband  by  a  disreputable  woman, 
inability  to  pay  by  a  tenant  farmer,  and  falsely  accus- 
ing a  man  of  laying  a  spell  upon  another. 

Severe  mutilation  was  legally  infl.icted.  Thus,  a 
boy's  tongue  was  cut  out  who  denied  his  parents,  a 
son's  eye  was  put  out  who  abandoned  his  foster  par- 
ents, a  nurse  who  substituted  a  child  for  the  one  who 
died  while  in  her  care  lost  her  breasts,  a  son  who 
struck  his  father  lost  his  hand,  and  a  slave  who  struck 
a  freeman's  son  lost  his  ear. 

The  lex  talionis  was  very  common,  especially  for 
injuries  inflicted  unintentionally.  It  was  appealed  to 
chiefly  as  a  preventative.  The  ordeal  by  water  was 
practised. 

Babylonian  and  Assyrian  justice  has  a  commercial 
aspect  in  our  judgment,  e.  g.,  a  patrician  had  to  pay 
three  times  as  much  in  case  of  theft  as  a  plebeian, 


50  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

but  the  penalty  for  injuring  a  patrician  was  more 
than  that  for  injuring  a  plebeian.  Although  the  fact 
that  a  surgeon's  fee  was  greater  for  a  patrician  than 
for  a  plebeian  seems  thoroughly  modern. 

Much  care  was  taken  to  fix  and  define  ownership 
of  property.  Property  rights  were  possessed  by  all 
classes  of  people  and  by  women  and  children  as  well 
as  by  men.  The  law  controlled  buying  and  selling, 
renting  and  letting,  redeeming  and  sharing,  but  a 
royal  charter  could  dispense  from  various  obligations. 
A  sharp  distinction  was  made  between  real  and  per- 
sonal property. 

Trade  and  business  were  placed  on  a  firm  legal 
basis.  Sales,  purchases,  endowments,  commissions, 
loans,  inheritance,  wills,  settlements,  gifts,  and  all 
kinds  of  contracts,  were  legal  transactions  usually 
made  in  the  presence  of  witnesses  and  often  accom- 
panied by  an  oath.  Business  companies  were  legally 
formed,  who  commissioned  agents  and  carried  on  for- 
eign as  well  as  domestic  trade.  Exact  accounts  were 
kept  and  profits  were  strictly  shared  and  distributed, 
and  the  power  of  attorney  was  recognized.  Orders 
were  honoured  and  legal  receipts  were  given.  A  debt 
was  legally  binding,  the  lender  possessing  the  right  of 
cancellation,  except  where  the  debt  was  due  to  storm, 
flood,  or  drought,  when  there  was  an  automatic  abate- 
ment. Goods  could  be  accepted  in  lieu  of  money  or 
com  for  debt.  Eates  of  sale  and  storage  were  often 
settled  by  law,  and  neglect  to  make  satisfaction  in 
business  matters  was  promptly  punished. 

The  bulk  of  labour  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria  was 


Idea  of  Mart  51 

done  by  slaves,  although  there  were  freemen,  espe- 
cially freed  slaves,  who  were  labourers.  Slaves  were 
acquired  by  gift  or  inheritance,  by  capture  or  by 
purchase.  They  were  treated  as  property,  sold,  hired, 
loaned,  acquired  by  inheritance  or  gift,  and  listed 
like  other  property.  The  wages  of  a  slave  were  always 
paid  to  his  master.  A  female  slave  (a-ma-at)  was  ac- 
quired in  the  same  way  as  a  male  slave  and  could 
be  sold  and  exchanged  and  given  or  taken  in  marriage. 
She  could  become  the  wife  of  a  freeman,  in  which 
case  the  children  were  free,  and  her  marriage  was  a 
legal  one. 

A  freeman  was  responsible  for  the  support  of  his 
slave.  A  slave  could  be  adopted  as  a  son,  the  cere- 
mony being  a  religious  one  with  an  elaborate  ritual. 
The  names  of  the  real  parents  of  a  slave  are  never 
given.  Slaves  were  often  freed,  when  they  assumed 
all  the  rights  of  a  freeman.  The  freeing  of  a  slave 
was  a  religious  ceremony.  One  word  translated  "to 
free",  u-da-am-mi-ku-si-ma,  means  purified;  another 
expression  is  pu-zu  u-li-il,  '^cleanse  his  forehead".  A 
captive  slave  if  brought  home  is  freed  from  his  slavery. 
A  freed  slave  was  obliged  to  support  his  father  during 
his  lifetime,  but  after  that  the  children  of  the  master 
had  no  claim  upon  the  former  slave;  a  freed  female 
slave  could  enter  a  convent  and  be  dedicated  to  a  god. 

If  a  freed  slave  repudiated  his  foster  father  he  was 
punished  as  a  freeman,  but  if  a  slave  repudiated  his 
master,  he  lost  an  ear.  If  a  slave  wife  repudiated 
her  husband's  mother,  the  mother  could  brand  her  and 
sell  her. 


52  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

The  penalty  imposed  upon  a  slave  for  injuring  a 
freeman  was  severe,  in  one  instance  his  ear  being 
cut  off,  but  still  more  severe  was  the  penalty  imposed 
upon  a  man  who  abducted  a  slave. 

The  lot  of  the  slave  was  hard,  but,  as  we  have  seen, 
he  had  certain  well-defined  rights,  and  he  could  engage 
in  business  by  agreeing  to  pay  a  fair  percentage  of 
his  profit  to  his  master. 

It  has  always  and  everywhere  been  considered 
greatly  to  the  advantage  of  a  nation  to  be  at  peace 
with  its  neighbours,  and  to  this  end  treaties  were  often 
made.  At  the  very  dawn  of  Sumerian  history  there 
is  evidence  of  a  treaty  between  the  chiefs  of  neighbour- 
ing states,  and  throughout  Sumeria's  history  there  are 
many  references  to  the  formation  of  treaties,  one  of 
the  most  famous  being  that  described  on  the  Stela  of 
the  Vultures  between  Lagash  and  Umma.  The  power 
of  treaty  making  was  considered  always  to  belong  to 
the  deity.  The  chiefs  made  the  treaty,  but  it  was 
always  in  the  name  of  their  gods. 

An  essential  part  of  the  ritual  of  a  treaty  was  the 
oath  which  was  taken  in  the  name  of  the  gods  and 
sometimes  in  that  of  the  king.  The  oath  was  a  con- 
ditional malediction,  and  violation  of  a  treaty  entailed 
not  only  a  curse,  but  was  also  visited  with  severe  pun- 
ishments. 

Wars  were  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  early 
Sumeria,  because  of  the  many  small  and  independent 
city-states  which  were  so  near  to  one  another  that 
their  interests  were  always  clashing.  An  interesting 
example  of  almost  continuous  conflict  between  two 


Idea  of  Man  53 

such  states  is  that  of  Umma  and  Lagash.  The  con- 
queror was  very  often  cruel  and  gloried  in  leaving  the 
bones  of  the  enemy  to  bleach  in  the  open  field. 

All  wars  were  religious,  for  the  Sumerians  always 
believed  that  they  fought  under  the  direction  and  ad- 
vice of  their  gods.  When  one  city  made  war  upon  an- 
other it  was  because  their  gods  were  at  feud.  The 
destruction  of  the  enemy  was  often  ascribed  to  the 
actual  agency  of  their  deity,  and  plundering  was  car- 
ried out  at  the  god's  command.  The  foe  was  consid- 
ered unconsecrated  and  ritually  unclean,  and  a  foreign 
land  was  a  wicked  one.  Yet,  they  could  be  merciful, 
if  the  dead  seen  on  the  Stela  of  the  Vultures  be  not 
only  their  own  but  also  those  of  the  enemy. 

There  is  practically  nothing  known  about  how  the 
Sumerians  treated  an  individual  stranger  or  foreigner, 
like  the  gei-  among  the  Hebrews.  From  the  foreigner's 
point  of  view,  exile  was  never  contemplated  with  any 
degree  of  pleasure,  but  that  would  be  natural. 

Between  Babylonia  and  surrounding  countries  there 
was  a  good  deal  of  peaceful  intercourse.  It  was 
the  boast  of  Kudur-Marduk  of  Elam  that  he  had 
never  done  evil  {mi-im-ma)  to  Larsa  and  to  Emutabal 
but  did  what  pleased  Shamash.  It  was  the  desire  of 
all  Babylon  kings  to  carry  on  peaceful  trade  and  com- 
merce with  foreign  peoples,  for  they  desired  nothing 
more  than  an  opportunity  to  develope  their  material 
resources.  On  the  other  hand,  warlike  relations  be- 
tween nations  were  the  normal  state  of  affairs.  Even 
Hammurapi  who  was  a  lover  of  the  peaceful  arts 
was  often  involved  in  war,  especially  with  his  fa- 


54  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

mous  contemporary,  Eim-Sin  of  Ur,  and  each  king 
appealed  to  his  gods  for  aid  against  his  opponent. 

Levies  were  made  especially  upon  labourers  to  carry 
on  foreign  wars,  and  the  punishment  was  death  for 
a  person  to  harbour  a  slacker.  These  wars  were  the 
source  of  much  plunder,  especially  of  foreigners,  who 
were  sold  as  slaves,  and  large  sums  of  money  were 
paid  by  the  opposing  sides  for  the  redemption  of  im- 
portant prisoners. 

Eesident  aliens,  however,  were  usually  treated  with 
consideration  and  could  become  citizens,  being  under 
no  disabilities. 

In  Assyria's  warlike  literature  there  is  little  room 
for  peaceful  sentiments,  although  there  is  no  trace 
of  political  disability  on  the  part  of  foreigners  in 
Assyria,  and  oaths  that  bound  Assyria  to  a  foreign 
country  in  treaty  were  inviolable.  However,  Assyria 
was  a  great  war-like  country.  She  gloried  in  her 
armies  and  conquests.  Her  great  war-gods,  Ashur  and 
Ishtar,  gave  her  all  victory.  All  war  was  religious. 
It  was  to  enhance  the  power  of  the  gods,  and  to  ex- 
tend their  boundaries. 

The  army  was  recruited  from  all  ranks,  especially 
from  serfs  and  slaves,  the  military  unit  being  the 
bowman  and  his  pikeman  and  shield-bearer.  There 
is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the  Assyrian  kings 
and  their  armies  were  exceedingly  cruel  in  battle. 
Corpses  of  enemies  were  mutilated,  their  lands  were 
sowed  with  salt,  heads  of  the  slain  were  exhibited  in 
piles  outside  the  cities,  and  gathered  to  be  counted 
hj  royal  officials.    Although  the  kings  were  sometimes 


Idea  of  Man  55 

merciful,  they  loved  to  boast  of  great  cruelties  and 
inhumanity.  Assyria  was  militaristic  to  the  core, 
she  exulted  in  conquest  and  in  all  the  cruelties  which 
were  believed  to  be  capable  of  striking  terror  into 
the  hearts  of  her  enemies. 

In  Babylonia  and  Assyria  men  believed  in  the  ex- 
istence of  numerous  gods,  some  more  powerful  than 
others,  some  good  and  some  bad.  The  great  gods 
were  considered,  as  a  rule,  favorable  to  man,  but 
the  Igigi  were  most  hostile.  The  king  was  the  pro- 
tege of  the  gods,  being  defended  by  them ;  and  from 
them,  the  source  of  all  Justice,  he  derived  his  author- 
ity. The  gods  not  only  created  man,  but  they  were  the 
source  of  all  stability.  Their  mouths  were  pure  and 
could  not  "be  altered".  The  gods  were  the  real  judges, 
kings  and  human  judges  being  their  representatives. 
The  greatest  of  all  the  divine  judges  was  Shamash, 
the  establisher  of  right  and  justice,  the  judge  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  with  him  was  associated  Adad. 

The  gods  were  very  anthropomorphically  conceived, 
and  were  created  as  well  as  human  beings;  they  had 
their  jealousies  and  other  limitations  and  were  sub- 
ject to  decay  and  death. 

Faith  in  the  gods  was  universal,  and  men  contin- 
ually appealed  to  them.  There  is  considerable  evi- 
dence that  the  individual  Babylonian  appealed  directly 
to  his  god  or  goddess.  Such  expressions  as  "thou 
from  whom  cometh  the  life  of  all  people"  are  not 
to  be  taken  as  evidence  of  monotheism,  but  only  as 
examples  of  the  confidence  which  individuals  had  in 
the  particular  deity  to  whom  they  were  for  the  time 


56  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

being  directing  their  supplications.  Very  often  in  just 
such  expressions,  the  suppliant  shows  his  conscious- 
ness of  the  existence  of  other  gods,  e.  g.,  one  prays, 
"0  Sin,  as  the  first-bom  of  Bel,  no  equal  hast  thou." 
Nor  is  the  expression,  "who  can  comprehend  the  ways 
of  god",  to  be  taken  as  monotheistic.  The  most 
powerful  or  most  popular  god  was  often  addressed  as 
if  he  were  "god"  without  implying  thereby  the  non- 
existence of  other  deities. 

The  gods  were  not  only  supplicated,  they  were  also 
adored  and  praised  as  the  source  of  all  help,  comfort, 
compassion,  and  strength. 

There  was  a  very  close  and  intimate  relation  ex- 
isting between  king  and  gods.  In  most  ancient  times, 
it  was  believed  that  the  gods  really  reigned  as  kings 
on  earth,  and  so,  in  later  times,  they  were  often 
addressed  as  "king".  Then  the  time  came  when  the 
king  was  considered  the  very  offspring  of  the  gods, 
but  by  the  first  Babylonian  dynasty  such  a  belief  was 
considered  fictitious,  the  king  being  the  servant  of  the 
gods.  Hammurapi  believed  that  he  was  called  by 
the  gods  to  enlighten  the  land  and  to  further  the  wel- 
fare of  the  people,  to  prevent  the  strong  from  oppress- 
ing the  weak,  to  destroy  the  wicked  and  the  evil,  and 
to  cause  justice  to  prevail  in  the  land.  He  was  the  es- 
pecial protege  of  Shamash,  who  endowed  him  with 
justice  and  to  whom  he  was  obedient.  He,  however, 
was  pious  and  suppliant  to  all  the  great  gods,  being 
their  faithful  servant  and  worshipper,  and  to  whom 
he  ascribed  all  his  might. 

In  return  for  divine  favours,  the  Babylonian  and 


Idea  of  Man  57 

Assyrian  kings  assumed  a  supreme  interest  in  the 
temple  and  its  worship.  Hammurapi  brought  abun- 
dance to  Egissirgal  and  made  prosperous  the  shrines 
of  Malkat.  Sometimes  the  temples  were  called  upon 
to  ransom  a  man  who  had  been  taken  captive,  and 
sometimes  the  king  forced  loans  from  the  temple, 
but  the  latter  was  considered  wrong,  and  the  former 
was  done  only  because  of  the  great  wealth  possessed 
by  the  temples,  in  itself  a  proof  of  their  popularity. 
The  house  of  the  god  was  the  home  of  justice  and 
the  place  of  prayer,  of  sacrifice,  and  of  praise.  Any 
violation  of  the  temple's  rights  was  looked  upon  with 
displeasure,  and  theft  therefrom  was  punished  with 
death.  This  was,  however,  the  punishment  for  all 
burglary. 

As  the  gods  were  the  source  of  all  justice,  so  in  their 
name  were  all  oaths  taken  and  maledictions  uttered. 
The  sinner  was  in  constant  dread  of  the  gods  who 
hated  sin  and  punished  wrong. 

It  is,  however,  just  the  ordinary  man  of  whom  we 
should  like  to  know  more,  for  he  has  his  own  peculiar 
interest.  He  is  significant  because  of  his  insignifi- 
cance. He  interests  us  because  he  presents  the  type  to 
which  we  almost  all  belong.  He  ought  to  be  interest- 
ing also  because  he  represents  so  much  the  largest  ele- 
ment in  universal  human  life.  The  average  man  is  by 
far  the  most  numerous  man.  The  man  who  goes  be- 
yond the  average,  the  man  who  falls  short  of  the 
average,  both  of  them,  by  their  very  definition,  are  ex- 
ceptions. They  are  the  outskirts  and  fringes,  the  capes 
and  promontories  of  humanity.    The  great  continent 


58  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

of  hiiman  life  is  made  up  of  the  average  existences,  the 
mass  of  two-talented  capacity  and  action.  The  great 
multitudes  of  men  are  neither  very  rich  nor  very 
poor.  The  real  character  and  strength  of  a  com- 
munity lies  neither  in  its  millionaires  nor  in  its  pau- 
pers but  in  the  men  of  middle  life,  who  neither  have 
more  money  than  they  know  how  to  spend  nor  are 
pressed  and  embarrassed  for  the  necessities  of  life. 
The  same  is  true  in  the  matter  of  joy  and  sorrow. 
The  great  mass  of  men  during  the  greater  part  of  their 
lives  are  neither  exultant  and  triumphant  with  de- 
light, nor  are  they  crushed  and  broken  with  grief. 
They  do  not  go  shouting  their  rapture  to  the  skies, 
and  they  do  not  go  wailing  their  misery  to  the  S3rmpa- 
thetic  winds.  They  are  moderately  happy.  Or  if  we 
consider  mental  capacity,  most  men  are  neither  sages 
nor  fools.  Or  if  we  think  about  learning,  few  men 
are  either  scholars  or  dunces.  Or  if  we  consider  pop- 
ularity and  fame,  those  whom  the  whole  world  praises 
and  those  whom  all  men  despise  are  both  of  them  ex- 
ceptional. We  can  count  them  easily.  The  great  mul- 
titude whom  we  cannot  begin  to  count,  who  fill  the 
vast  middle-ground  of  the  great  picture  of  humanity, 
is  made  up  of  men  who  are  simply  well  enough  liked 
by  their  fellow-men. 

And  when  we  come  to  the  profounder  and  the  more 
personal  things,  to  character  and  religion,  there,  too, 
it  is  the  average  man  that  fills  the  eye.  Where  are 
the  heroes?  We  find  them  if  we  look,  ^liere  are 
the  rascals?  We  find  them  too.  "WTiere  are  the 
saints?     They  shine  where  no  true  man's  eye  can 


Idea  of  Man  59 

fail  to  see  them.  But  as  to  the  great  host  of  men,  we 
know  how  little  reason  they  give  us  to  expect  of  them 
either  great  goodness  or  great  wickedness. 

These  are  the  men  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  of 
whom  we  should  like  to  know  more — men  whose  lot 
was  not  the  highest,  nor  whose  misfortune  was  the 
greatest,  but  the  rank  and  file  of  their  day.  We  can 
imagine  them  obedient  to  their  over-lords,  kind  to 
their  families,  and  reverent  to  their  gods.  Into  that 
busy  commercial  life  so  characteristic  of  Babylonia 
and  Assyria  we  should  like  to  get  a  peep.  Those  men 
who  fought  their  battles  with  so  much  vigour,  did  their 
business  with  so  much  method,  and  served  their  gods 
with  so  much  elaboration,  we  should  like  to  study. 
Perhaps  the  future  has  more  surprises  in  store  for  us. 
Less  than  a  hundred  years  ago  men  could  not  imagine 
the  vast  areas  of  human  endeavour  upon  which  the 
work  of  the  archaeologist  and  student  of  culture  and 
religion  have  thrown  light.  Little  was  known  of 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  then,  and  far  less  of  Sumeria. 
Now  we  can  trace  their  military  campaigns,  read 
their  poems,  study  their  laws,  and  contemplate  their 
religious  visions.  With  the  passage  of  Mesopotamia 
into  the  hands  of  a  responsible  and  sympathetic 
government,  and  with  the  careful  sifting  of  the  sands 
of  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  deserts,  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  limit  the  extent  of  further  information,  about 
these  ancient  peoples,  that  may  be  forthcoming. 

But  in  spite  of  our  fragmentary  information,  we 
know  enough  to  be  able  to  state  that  the  ideal  of  the 
early  inhabitants  of  the  Tigris-Euphrates  valley  was 


60  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

a  very  high  one.  They  considered  themselves  offspring 
of  the  gods,  endowed  with  high  mental  and  spiritual 
capacities,  responsible  for  the  welfare  of  the  race,  and 
possessed  of  the  capacity  for  endless  development. 
Such  was  man  as  he  laboured  and  toiled,  sowed  and 
reaped,  loved  and  hated,  thought  and  dreamed  in  the 
mighty  empires  that  were  once  Babylonia  and  Assyria. 


IV 

THE  IDEA  OF  MEDIATION  IN  BABYLONIA 
AND  ASSYRIA 

The  consciousness  of  wrongdoing  is,  and  has  always 
been,  a  universal  experience  among  men.  The  belief 
that  wrongdoing  is  an  offense  against  the  gods  is  its 
corollary.  In  fact,  wrongdoing  is  an  offense  only 
because  it  is  displeasing  to  the  gods.  When  David 
said,  "I  have  sinned  against  the  Lord",  or  when  the 
Babylonian  penitent  enumerated  all  the  wrongdoings 
he  could  think  of  in  order  to  locate  the  cause  of  his 
god's  displeasure  at  him,  he  testified  to  the  truth  of 
this  principle  that  all  sin  is  an  offense  against  god,  yea, 
even  is  sin  just  because  it  is  an  offense  against  god. 
All  this  assumes  that  man  believes  in  the  existence  of 
the  gods,  and  in  his  necessary  relationship  to  him. 
And  with  that  assumed,  the  first  step  in  the  conscious 
relationship  between  man  and  god  is  the  expression  of 
merit  or  fault  on  the  part  of  man  in  respect  to  god. 
The  next  step  is  the  full  acknowledgment  of  the 
true  moral  character  of  the  relationship.  And  then 
follows  the  full  acknowledgment  that  merit  or  fault 
is  pleasing  or  offensive  to  god. 

61 


62  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

With  the  consciousness  of  a  moral  relationship  with 
the  gods,  and  of  a  necessary  dependence  upon  them, 
and  obligation  toward  them,  man  immediately  be- 
comes concerned  with  the  problem  of  mediation,  that 
is,  with  the  question  of  how  he  is  to  be  represented 
in  the  presence  of  the  gods.  Now  there  are  two  ele- 
ments involved  in  the  idea  of  mediation.  They  are, 
gods  and  man — man  conscious  of  his  relationship  to 
and  dependence  upon  the  gods,  desirous  of  help ;  and 
the  gods,  presumably  able,  ready,  and  willing  to  help. 
Between  these  two  elements  comes  the  mediatorial 
power,  for  the  ancient  never  trusted  himself  to  appear 
directly  before  his  god.  He  believed  in  the  necessity 
of  a  mediator. 

Among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  the  chief 
mediator  between  man  and  god  was  the  king.  This 
was  so  because  the  kings  were  believed  to  be  the  off- 
spring of  the  gods.  In  fact,  the  first  earthly  king 
was  a  veritable  god,  and  represented  the  great  gods 
upon  earth.  Such  a  role  was  probably  played  by  Ea 
of  Eridu,  and  by  the  prophet-god  Nabu.  The  per- 
sistence of  this  idea  in  later  times  is  seen  in  the 
insistence  of  some  penitents  to  appeal  to  specific  gods 
to  intercede  for  them  to  other  gods.  When  the  gods 
retired  to  their  heavenly  home,  they  left  as  their  rep- 
resentatives certain  semi-divine  beings,  who  were  rul- 
ers of  men,  and  mediators  between  men  and  the  gods. 
Such  semi-divine  rulers  were  Gilgamesh  of  Uruk, 
two-thirds  god  and  one-third  man,  who  was  a  great 
and  energetic  ruler;  Azag-Bau,  queen  and  founder 
of  the  city  of  Kish;  Sargon  of  Agade,  whose  mother 


Idea  of  Mediation  63 

was  a  priestess,  but  whose  father  was  a  god;  and 
others,  such  as  Adapa,  Etana,  and  probably  Tammuz. 

The  rule  of  these  semi-divine  kings  was  followed 
by  human  dynasties.  But  all  the  characteristics,  privi- 
leges, and  obligations  of  these  rulers  were  transferred 
to  their  successors.  The  fundamental  duty  of  a  semi- 
divine  ruler  was  mediation,  and  that  became  the  first 
obligation  of  his  human  successor.  The  Babylonian 
and  Assyrian  monarch  was  primarily  a  representative 
of  the  gods  upon  earth ;  he  often  took  the  title  dingir, 
or  ilu,  god ;  he  was  the  "son  of  god" ;  he  was  at  first 
the  only  offerer  of  gifts,  of  sacrifices,  to  the  gods; 
and  he  was  the  sole  priest  and  only  mediator. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  had  never  developed 
a  belief  in  angels  and  demons,  as  mediators.  They 
believed  in  good  and  evil  spirits.  There  were  good 
and  evil  spirits.  There  were  good  spirits,  or  minor 
protective  deities,  called  ilu  amelu,  personal  god,  ilu 
hiti,  house  god,  and  ilu  ali,  city  god,  and  every  house 
had  its  sliedu  and  lamassu,  protective  spirits.  All 
these  acted  as  protectors  against  the  spirits  of  evil. 
Demons  were  sometimes  inferior  gods,  the  spirits  of 
the  unburied  dead,  disembodied  ghosts,  or  semi-divine 
creatures  or  goblins.  They  were  often  represented 
in  groups  of  seven.  But  neither  demons  nor  good 
spirits  ever  acted  as  mediators  between  gods  and  men. 
The  evil  spirits  were  the  source  of  all  suffering  and 
sickness,  and  the  office  of  the  good  spirits  was  to 
counteract  them.  A  man  may  be  possessed  by  a  good 
spirit,  when  health  and  happiness  and  prophetic 
power  results;  but  he  was  also  subject  to  possession 


64  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

by  a  demon,  in  which  case,  sickness  and  suffering  re- 
sulted. In  fact,  sickness  was  thought  of  in  terms  of 
demoniacal  possession,  and  there  was  a  demon  for 
almost  every  phase  of  sickness,  just  as  in  modern  days 
there  is  a  germ  for  every  type  of  disease. 

Nor  did  the  tendency  in  Babylonia  to  personify 
the  word  of  the  gods,  as  creative  power,  result  in  a 
mediator.  The  only  line  of  mediatorial  power  was 
through  divine  beings,  semi-divine  beings,  and  the 
king  as  "son  of  god",  and  as  priest  and  representative 
of  the  people.  But  with  the  creation  of  larger  groups 
of  people  into  national  life,  and  the  multiplication  of 
kingly  duties,  the  king's  office  as  priest  had  to  be 
delegated  to  representatives.  This  resulted  in  the 
establishment  of  priests  and  of  a  priesthood.  But 
still  the  king  remained  priest  par  excellence.  This 
statement  is  borne  out  by  many  facts  as  well  as  by 
the  title  which  designated  the  king,  namely  patesi, 
or  "priest  prince".  The  king  was  primarily  a  priest 
{patesi  is  the  Sumerian  equivalent  of  the  Semitic 
word  islisliakhu,  from  which  the  word  shangu,  priest, 
is  derived)  and  representative  of  the  gods  to  mankind. 
The  representatives  of  the  priest-prince  were  priests. 

The  light  of  the  body  is  the  eye,  and  the  eye  of 
the  human  soul  is  that  which  enables  man  to  see  god. 
The  one  appointed  channel  through  which  man  and 
the  gods,  the  two  halves  of  the  universe,  came  into 
contact  was  the  priesthood.  The  priesthood,  as  a 
power  of  mediation  between  man  and  god,  was  the 
eye  of  the  soul.  Without  the  physical  eye  the  world 
might  still  be  real ;  but  it  will  be  forever  unknowable 


Idea  of  Mediation  65 

to  the  man  sitting  in  his  prison  of  sightlessness,  where 
all  the  glory  cannot  reach  him.  But  let  the  window 
of  his  eye  be  opened  and  it  all  comes  pouring  in; 
runs  through  his  frame  and  finds  out  his  intelligence ; 
says  to  his  brain,  "Here  I  am,  know  me !" ;  says  to 
his  heart,  "Here  I  am,  love  me!"  To  such  a  man 
the  whole  bright  world  has  sprung  to  life;  and  the 
window  of  his  prison,  the  gateway  of  the  entering 
glory,  the  light  of  the  body,  is  the  eye. 

So  with  the  unseen,  invisible,  spiritual  world.  That 
world,  too,  must  and  can  testify  itself,  report  itself  to 
the  human  intelligence  through  its  appropriate  chan- 
nel of  communication  and  mediation,  just  as  the  world 
of  visible  nature  manifests  and  reports  itself  through 
the  organ  of  the  eye.  Now  it  is  just  the  existence 
of  that  spiritual  world,  and  the  possibility  of  man's 
being  in  communication  with  it,  intelligently  know- 
ing it,  intelligently  loving  it — that  it  is  about  which 
man's  profoundest  hopes  and  fears  have  always  clus- 
tered, about  which  they  are  clustering  to-day,  perhaps 
more  anxiously  than  ever.  It  is  a  world  which  has 
always  been  conceivable.  All  man's  mental  history 
bears  witness  that  he  can  picture  to  himself  a  world 
in  which  the  gods  dwell.  The  bridge,  then,  which  was 
thought  capable  of  connecting  the  world  of  gods  with 
the  world  of  men,  the  eye  through  which  man  could 
see  god,  was  the  mediatorial  power  of  the  priesthood. 

The  development  of  kingship,  the  title  of  the  early 
Babylonian  kings,  and  the  regalia  of  the  king,  espe- 
cially his  tall  tiara  or  mitre  with  long,  flowing  cords, 
all  point  to  the  priestly  office  and  character  of  the 


66  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

king.  But  with  the  development  of  commiimty  life 
it  was  physically  impossible  for  the  king  to  perform 
all  the  required  priestly  rites.  He  consequently  del- 
egated his  priestly  power,  without  surrendering  any 
of  his  own  priestly  rights,  to  a  class  of  men,  who  w^ere 
given  the  title  of  the  same  meaning  and  content  as 
that  which  he  himself  bore,  namely  shangu,  "'^priest". 

With  the  passage  of  time  this  class  of  men  waxed 
numerous  and  powerful,  and  were  divided  into  many 
orders  with  many  titles.  \ATien  a  strong  king  sat  on 
the  throne,  the  power  and  influence  of  the  priesthood 
were  held  in  check,  but  w^ak  kings  were  often  the  mere 
puppets  of  the  priests,  who  gained  more  and  more 
power,  and  established  more  and  more  priestly  prece- 
dents. At  last  they  became  hereditary,  the  office 
descending  from  father  to  son ;  they  were  highly  edu- 
cated; they  usurped  political  power;  and  sometimes 
became  very  corrupt,  politically,  insomuch  that  Uru- 
kagina,  for  example,  was  forced  to  bring  about  a 
sweeping  reform  of  the  priesthood. 

At  the  head  of  any  local  priesthood  stood  the  high 
priest,  sJiangu  rahu,  shangu  dannu,  or  shangu  maliJiu, 
He  was  called  ^^ord",  and  was  invested  by  the  king 
himself.  In  subordination  to  him  were  many  orders, 
chief  of  which  were:  the  MasJiu  or  Masliashu,  whose 
duties  were  primarily  connected  with  ritual  and  cere- 
monies, a  kind  of  master  of  ceremonies,  and  the  Uru- 
galhi,  a  master  of  ceremonies  for  evening  services; 
the  Pashishu,  or  anointers,  with  a  minor  order  called 
the  Kisallah;  the  Nam,  the  musician  priest  par  excel- 
lence, a  kind  of  canon-precentor,  and  the  8urru,  a 


Idea  of  Mediation  67 

chief  canon-precentor;  the  Bai'u,  or  seer,  with  his 
assistant,  the  Aharakku;  the  Ashipu,  the  incantation 
priest,  an  order  which  became  very  powerful,  who  held 
the  sacred  books  of  incantation  lore,  and  who  derived 
their  wisdom  from  Ea,  the  god  of  wisdom;  and  their 
assistant,  the  Asu  priest  who  specialized  in  water  in- 
cantations ;  the  Kalu  priest,  who  directed  lamentations 
and  prepared  astrological  reports;  the  Shailu,  or  in- 
terpreter of  dreams;  and  the  Sukkallu,  messenger  or 
deacon.  Then  there  w^as  the  Galldbu,  or  priestly  ton- 
sure cutter ;  and  there  were  other  minor  orders.  There 
were  also  priestesses — as  many  as  twenty  orders,  two- 
thirds  as  many  orders  as  that  of  the  priesthood — and 
in  addition,  there  were  many  classes  of  persons  devo- 
ted to  and  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  gods.  There 
were  vestal  virgins;  there  were  teachers;  there  were 
priestly  judges ;  there  were  astrologers  and  physicians ; 
and  there  were  priestly  scribes.  In  short,  there  was 
no  profession  of  influence  and  importance  which  had 
not  at  some  period  or  other  come  under  the  sway  of 
the  priesthood. 

Many  of  these  orders  demanded  that  a  candidate 
for  the  priesthood  must  be  of  noble  birth,  of  priestly 
blood,  perfect  in  bodily  growth,  and  learned  in  all 
branches  of  science.  Before  ordination,  the  candidate 
was  clean  shaven,  as  a  part  of  the  rite,  the  king  some- 
times performing  this  important  act;  and  was  pre- 
sented with  a  tiara,  the  symbol  of  his  priestly  office. 
After  ordination,  the  priest  was  obliged  to  wear  a 
distinct  dress — a  fringed  cloak,  reaching  to  the  feet, 
with  right  arm  uncovered — ^he  was  to  go  barefooted. 


68  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

and  to  assume  the  tonsure.  A  special  tithe  was  in- 
stituted for  the  priesthood,  and  fees  were  demanded 
for  all  important  services. 

Man  rarely  appears  before  his  god  empty-handed. 
He  generally  desires  something,  and  in  order  to  be 
sure  of  the  good  will  of  his  god  he  presents  a  gift. 
The  gift  usually  took  the  form  of  an  animal — some- 
times, on  very  serious  occasions,  a  human  being — 
which  was  killed,  and  either  completely  consumed  by 
fire,  or  roasted  and  eaten,  the  gods  receiving  a  share. 
This  was  called  a  sacrifice.  Thus  the  regular  accom- 
paniment, or  means  of  mediation,  became  a  sacrifice. 
And,  when  the  office  was  delegated  to  the  priesthood, 
sacrifice  was  the  means  of  operation. 

The  earliest  idea  of  a  sacrifice  was  that  of  com- 
munion. Men  and  their  god  joined  together  in  a 
sacred  meal,  and  partook  of  a  sacred  animal,  in  whose 
veins  had  run  the  blood  common  to  gods  and  man, 
that  is,  the  life  of  gods  and  man.  The  object  of  the 
sacred  meal  was  to  strengthen  that  bond  of  relation- 
ship between  man  and  the  gods  by  partaking  of  the 
common  life.  It  was  only  later  that  the  idea  of  sac- 
rifice as  a  gift  to  the  gods  arose,  and  still  later  the 
idea  of  a  gift  was  translated  into  terms  of  a  temple 
due. 

The  chief  materials  used  in  sacrifice  were:  oxen, 
sheep,  domestic-animals,  fowl,  fish,  wild-animals, 
bread,  wine,  water,  mead,  honey,  butter,  milk,  oil, 
grain,  fruit,  flour,  cane,  myrtle,  and  cedar  and  cypress 
wood. 

Many  elaborate  sacrificial  services  were  developed. 


Idea  of  Mediation  69 

and  liturgies  to  correspond  with  them.  One  of  the 
most  important  forms  of  sacrifice  was  the  sin-offering, 
which  was  considered  very  efficacious.  The  special 
gods  to  whom  this  offering  was  made  were  almost 
always  Ea,  Shamash,  and  Marduk.  The  ceremony 
was  later  connected  with  the  Shiptu,  or  incantation 
ceremony.  The  rite  was  very  elaborate,  the  chief 
feature  being  cleansing.  An  altar  was  erected  in 
the  open  air,  a  lamb  was  sacrificed,  with  dates,  meal, 
honey,  butter,  and  wine,  and  incense  was  freely  used. 
Manual  acts  w^re  numerous,  including  bowings  and 
prostrations.  The  so-called  sacrifice  to  the  dead  was 
the  Kispu,  from  the  verb  kasapu,  "to  leave  remains 
of  food  for  the  dead".  This  rite  was  a  gift-offering 
to  the  spirits  of  the  dead,  and  not  a  sacrifice  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  term.  The  dead  were  not  wor- 
shipped, the  purpose  being  merely  to  furnish  them 
with  food.  Associated  with  this  last  rite  were  services 
of  lamentation  and  mourning  for  the  dead,  which  were 
purely  ritual  exercises  without  any  element  of  worship. 
The  great  central  act  of  worship  was  the  sacrifice, 
and  the  bond,  which  was  renewed,  was  that  life 
common  to  man  and  to  the  gods.  This  was  no  mere 
symbolism,  at  least  to  the  earliest  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians.  There  was  no  doubt  in  their  minds  about 
the  reality  of  the  divine  relationship  between  men, 
animals,  and  the  gods.  The  same  blood  ran  through 
the  veins  of  all  of  them.  In  the  blood  was  life,  and 
the  partaking  thereof,  and  of  that  in  which  the  blood 
existed,  the  flesh,  constituted  a  partaking  of  the 
common  life,  and  a  strengthening  of  that  common 


70  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

bond.  To  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  mind  a  sac- 
rifice was  a  great  and  solemn  reality.  Even  the  meal- 
sacrifice  was  interpreted  in  the  same  way,  but  was  not 
considered  as  worthy.  The  reason  for  Yahweh's  dis- 
crimination between  Cain  and  Abel  was  that  Abel 
offered  an  animal  sacrifice,  while  Cain's  was  a  meal- 
sacrifice.  But  the  sacrifice  was  the  central  act  of 
worship,  and  the  normal  mode  of  mediation  between 
gods  and  men. 

Nor  were  these  sacrifices  offered  in  a  gloomy  silence, 
as  if  the  people  were  doing  a  hard  duty  which  they 
would  not  do  if  they  could  help  it;  but  with  a  burst 
of  jubilant  joy  and  with  songs  of  gladness  which 
rang  down  through  the  crowded  courts  of  the  temple, 
the  host  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  claimed 
for  themselves  anew  their  place  in  the  obedience  of 
their  gods.  The  act  of  sacrifice  was  done  amid  a 
chorus  of  delight. 

To  us  such  a  sacrifice,  beautiful  and  inspiring  as 
it  may  be,  would  be  only  a  symbol,  because  the  things 
which  the  childhood  of  the  race  values  are  the  symbols 
or  types  of  the  things  which  the  manhood  of  the  race 
learns  to  value.  The  man  does  not  want  the  boy's 
sports  because  he  has  found  in  the  serious  work  of 
life  the  true  field  for  those  emulations  and  activities 
which  were  only  practising  and  trying  themselves  in 
the  play-ground.  The  man  can  do  without  the  boy's 
perpetual  physical  activity,  because  he  has  come  to 
the  pleasures  of  an  active  mind  which  the  restlessness 
of  the  child's  body,  in  his  pleasure  in  mere  move- 
ment, anticipated  and  prophesied.     It  seems  as  if 


Idea  of  Mediation  71 

the  change  from  boyhood  into  a  true  manhood  could 
not  be  more  justly  described  than  as  an  advance  from 
dealing  with  symbols  to  dealing  with  realities.  And 
if,  then,  every  progress  in  life  is  a  change  from 
some  new  boyhood  to  some  yet  riper  manhood ;  if  every 
man  is  a  child  to  his  own  possible  maturer  self ;  may  it 
not  be  truly  stated  that  all  the  spiritual  advances  of 
life  are  advances  from  some  symbol  to  its  reality,  and 
that  the  abandoned  interests  and  occupations  which 
strew  the  path  which  the  world  has  travelled  are  the 
symbols  which  it  has  cast  away  because  it  had  grasped 
the  realities  for  which  they  stood  ?  Even  so,  although 
there  are  now  no  more  smoking  altars  or  bleeding 
beasts  among  civilized  men,  we  can  nevertheless  look 
back  to  the  childhood  of  the  race,  and  see  how  real 
those  things  were  to  them,  w^hich  we  now  look  upon 
as  mere  symbols  of  the  true.  They  were  the  school- 
masters leading  mankind  to  higher  things. 

The  most  naive  conceptions  of  prayer  are  possible 
to  polytheists,  who  can  have  no  doubts  about  the 
efficacy  of  prayer,  for  no  such  problems  arise  as  those 
with  which  monotheists  are  troubled.  Where  there 
are  many  gods  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  one 
may  be  able  to  outwit  or  over-rule  another.  But  even 
so,  many  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  prayers  gave  ex- 
pression to  a  very  elevated  and  noble  religious  and 
ethical  point  of  view.  Lugalzaggisi,  king  of  Sumer, 
about  2800  B.  C.  prayed  thus  to  his  god  Enlil :  ''0 
Enlil,  king  of  lands,  may  Anu  to  his  beloved  father 
speak  my  prayer;  to  my  life  may  he  add  life,  and 
cause  the  lands  to  dwell  in  security."    Nebuchadrezzar, 


72  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

king  of  Babylon,  about  585  B.  C.  addressed  his  god 
Marduk  with  the  following  beautiful  prayer : 

"0    eternal   prince!     Lord    of    all   being! 
The  king  whom  thou  lovest,  and 
Whose  name  thou  hast  declared 
To  be  pleasing  to  thee — 
Do  thou  lead  aright  his  name, 
Guide  him  in  a  straight  path. 
I  am  thy  prince,  thy  favourite, 
The  work  of  thy  hand; 
Thou  hast  created  me,  and 
Hast  entrusted  me 
With  dominion  over  all  people. 
According  to  thy  favour,  0  Lord, 
Which  thou  dost  bestow 
Upon  all  people, 

Cause  me  to  love  thy  exalted  lordship. 
And  create  in  my  heart 
The  worship  of  thy  divinity. 
Grant  me  whatever  is  pleasing  to  thee, 
Because  thou  hast  fashioned  my  life." 

In  this  prayer  the  ideal  has  surely  been  reached. 
The  king  prays  not  that  his  will  be  done,  but  that 
his  god  might  grant  him  "whatever  is  pleasing  to 
thee".  Sometimes  a  prayer  takes  the  form  of  a  peni- 
tential psalm  rich  in  beauty  and  worship,  and  deep 
in  ethical  thought.    Thus  a  suppliant  prays  to  Ishtar : 

"I,  thy  servant,  full  of  sighs,  call  upon  thee. 
The  humble  prayer  of  him  who  has  sinned  do  thou  accept. 
If  thou  lookest  upon  a  man,  that  man  liveth, 
O  mighty  mistress  of  mankind. 
Merciful  one  to  whom  it  is  good  to  turn,  who  accepts  sighs." 

Perhaps  the  best  of  these  psalms  is  an  anonymous 


Idea  of  Mediation  73 

prayer  to  be  addressed  to  any  deity.     It  is  full  of 
rich  religious  sentiment  and  high  moral  discernment : 

"The  anger  of  the  lord,  may  it  be  appeased. 

The  god  that  I  know  not,  be  appeased. 

The  goddess  that  I  know  not,  be  appeased. 

The  god,  known  or  unknown,  be  appeased. 

The  heart  of  my  god,  be  appeased. 

The  heart  of  my  goddess,  be  appeased. 

The  anger  of  the  god  and  of  my  goddess,  be  appeased. 

The  god,  who  is  angry  against  me,  be  appeased. 

A  transgression  against  a  god  I  knew  not,  I  have  com- 
mitted. 

A  transgression  against  a  goddess  I  knew  not,  I  have  com- 
mitted. 

A  gracious  name,  may  the  god  I  knew  not,  name. 

A  gracious  name,  may  the  goddess  I  knew  not,  name. 

A  gracious  name,  may  the  god  known  or  unknown,  name. 

The  pure  food  of  my  god  have  I  imwittingly  eaten. 

The  clear  water  of  my  goddess  I  have  unwittingly  drunken. 

The  taboo  of  my  god  I  have  unwittingly  eaten. 

To  an  offense  against  my  goddess  I  have  unwittingly 
walked. 

0  lord,  my  transgressions  are  many,  great  are  my  sins, 

My  god,  my  transgressions  are  many,  great  are  my  sins, 

0  goddess,    known    or   unknown,    my   transgressions   are 

many,  great  are  my  sins, 
The  transgression  that  I  have  committed,  I  know  not, 
The  sin  that  I  have  wrought,  I  know  not. 
The  taboo,  that  I  have  eaten,  I  know  not. 
The  offense,  into  which  I  walked,  I  know  not. 
The  lord,  in  the  wrath  of  his  heart,  has  regarded  me. 
The  god,  in  the  anger  of  his  heart,  has  surrounded  me. 
The  goddess,  who  is  angry  against  me,  hath  made  me  like 

a  sick  man, 
A  god,  known  or  unknown,  hath  oppressed  me, 
A  goddess,  known  or  unknown,  has  wrought  me  sorrow. 

1  sought  for  help,  but  none  took  my  hand, 


74  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

I  wept,  but  none  came  to  my  side, 

I  cried  aloud,  and  there  was  none  that  heard  me. 

I  am  full  of  trouble,  overpowered,  and  dare  not  look  up. 

To  my  merciful  god  I  turn,  I  utter  my  prayer, 

The  feet  of  my  goddess  I  kiss,  I  touch  them, 

To  the  god,  known  or  unknown,  I  turn,  I  utter  my  prayer. 

To  the  goddess,  known  or  unknown,  I  turn,  I  utter  my 

prayer. 
0  lord,  turn  thy  face  to  me,  receive  my  prayer. 
0  goddess,  turn  graciously  to  me,  receive  my  prayer. 
0  god,  known  or  unknown,  turn  thy  face  to  me,  receive 

my  prayer. 
0   goddess,   known    or   unknown,   turn   graciously   to   me, 

receive  my  prayer. 
How  long,  0  my  god,  let  thy  heart  be  appeased. 
How  long,  0  my  goddess,  let  thy  heart  be  appeased. 
0  god,  known  or  unknown,  let  thy  heart's  anger  return  to 

its  place. 
0  goddess,  known  or  unknown,  let  thy  hostile  heart  return 

to  its  place. 
Mankind  are  foolish,  and  there  is  none  that  knoweth. 
So  many  are  they — who  knoweth  aught? 
Whether  they  do  evil  or  good,  no  one  knoweth. 
0  lord,  cast  not  away  thy  servant. 
In  the  waters  of  mire  he  lies,  seize  his  hand! 
The  sins,  that  I  have  done,  turn  to  a  blessing. 
The  transgression,  which  I  have  committed,  may  the  wind 

bear  away. 
My  manifold  transgressions  strip  off  like  a  garment. 
0  my  god,  my  transgressions  are  seven  times  seven,  forgive 

my  transgressions. 
0  my  goddess,  my  transgressions  are  seven  times  seven, 

forgive  my  transgressions. 
0  god,  known  or  unknown,  my  transgressions  are  seven 

times  seven,  forgive  my  transgressions. 
0    grddess,    known    or    unknown,    my    transgressions    are 

seven  times  seven,  forgive  my  transgressions. 
Forgive  my  transgression,  for  I  humble  myself  before  thee. 


Idea  of  Mediation  75 

Thy  heart,  like  a  mother's,  may  it  return  to  its  place, 
Like  a  mother  that  hath  borne  children,  like  a  father  that 
hath  begotten  them,  may  it  turn  again  to  its  place." 

Prayers  were  both  private  and  public.  In  public 
services  prayers  became  rather  liturgical  and  stereo- 
typed. They  were  usually  written  for  the  occasion, 
and  were  chanted  or  sung  by  priests  and  people.  The 
following  is  a  verse  of  a  typical  liturgical  prayer: 

"Oh,  heart,  repent;    oh    heart,  repose,  repose. 
Oh,  heart  of  Anu,  repent,  repent. 
Oh,  heart  of  Enlil,  repent,  repent." 

But  individual  prayers,  sometimes  liturgical,  but 
more  often  private,  said  on  all  occasions — for  the 
Babylonians  and  Assyrians  were  a  very  pious  people 
— developed  from  a  primitive  form  of  divine  adula- 
tion, to  a  high  place  of  noble  religious  and  ethical 
expression.  Although  they  are  surcharged  with  petty 
worldly  interests,  and  gross  magical  conceptions, 
they  very  often  show  a  penetration  into  ethical  dis- 
tinctions and  a  deep  sense  of  the  goodness,  justice, 
and  holiness  of  the  gods  that  is  quite  remarkable. 

There  were  also  hymns,  remarkable  for  their  relig- 
ious and  ethical  teaching,  although  many  of  them 
were  marred  by  pure  magical  formulae.  This  class 
of  religious  composition  is  very  hard  to  date,  though 
the  best  hynms  are  certainly  comparatively  late. 
Hymns  were  addressed  to  the  various  gods,  usually 
to  one  specified  deity  at  a  time.  The  great  gods,  such 
as  Sin,  Shamash,  Marduk,  and  Nabu,  are  the  most 
frequently  supplicated  deities  in  this  class  of  liter- 


76  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

ature.  Sometimes  hymn,  prayer,  and  incantation 
are  blended  into  one,  for  example,  a  hymn  to  Ishtar, 
in  which  beautiful  religious  thought  passes  into  magic 
and  incantation: 

"I  pray  unto  thee,  sovereign  of  sovereigns,  goddess  of  god- 


Ishtar,  queen  of  all  men,  directress  of  mankind. 

0  Irini,  0  exalted  one,  mistress  of  the  Igigi, 

Thou  art  mighty,  thou  art  queen,  thy  name  is  exalted. 

Thou  art  the  light  of  heaven  and  earth,  O  valiant  daughter 
of  Sin, 

Directing  arms,  establishing  combat, 

Framing  all  laws,  bearing  the  crown  of  dominion. 

O  lady,  thy  greatness  is  majestic,  exalted  above  all  the 
gods. 

Star  of  lamentation,  who  makest  hostility  among  brethren 
at  peace. 

Making  them  abandon  friendship 

For  a  friend.  0  lady  of  victory,  making  my  desire  im- 
petuous., 

0  Gushea,  who  art  covered  with  battle,  who  art  clothed 

with  fear, 
Thou  dos-t  perfect  destiny  and  decision,  the  law  of  earth 

and  heaven. 
Sanctuaries,  shrines,  divine  dwellings,  and  temples  worship 

thee. 
Where  is  thy  name  not  heard?     Where  not  thy  decree? 
Where  are  thy  images  not  made?     Where  are  thy  temples 

not  founded? 
Where  art  thou  not  great?     Where  art  thou  not  exalted? 
Anu,  Bel,  and  Ea  have  exalted  thee,  among  the  gods  have 

they  increased  thy  dominion. 
Thou  judgest  the  cause  of  men  with  justice  and  right. 
Thou  regardest  the  violent  and  destructive,  thou  directest 

them  every  morning. 

1  invoke  thee,  I,  sorrowful,  sighing,  suffering, 


Idea  of  Mediation  77 

Look  upon  me,  0  my  lady,  and  accept  my  supplication. 

Pity  me  in  truth,  and  hearken  unto  my  prayer. 

Speak  deliverance  unto  me,  let  thy  heart  be  appeased. 

How  long  shall  my  body  lament,  full  of  troubles  and  dis- 
orders ? 

How  long  shall  my  heart  be  afflicted,  full  of  sorrow  and 
sigh  ing  ? 

How  long  shall  my  omens  be  sad,  troubled,  and  confused? 

How  long  shall  my  house  be  troubled,  pouring  forth  com- 
plaints? 

Put  an  end  to  the  evil  bewitchments  of  my  body,  that  I 
may  see  thy  clear  light. 

How  long,  O  my  lady,  shall  the  ravenous  demon  pursue  me  ? 

This  shalt  thou  do  ....  a  green  bough  shalt  thou  sprinkle 
with  pure  water ;  four  bricks  from  the  midst  of  a  ruin 
shalt  thou  set  up; 

A  lamb  shalt  thou  take;  with  carlatu  wood  shalt  thou  fill 
the  censer,  and  thou  shalt  set  fire  (thereto)  ;  sweet 
scented  woods,  some  upunta  plant  and  some  cypress 
wood, 

Shalt  thou  keep  up;  a  drink  offering  shalt  thou  offer,  but 
thou  shalt  not  bow  thyself  down.  This  incantation 
before  the  goddess  Ishtar 

Three  times  shalt  thou  recite  ....  and  thou  shalt  not 
look  behind  thee. 

0  exalted  Ishtar,  that  givest  light  unto  the  four  quarters 
of  the  world." 

But  the  greatest  of  all  hymns  handed  down  to  us 
from  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  religious  literature 
is  an  address  to  Shamash: 

"The  mighty  mountains  are  filled  with  thy  glance, 
Thy  holiness  fills  and  overpowers  all  lands. 
Thou  dost  reach  the  mountains,  dost  overlook  the  earth; 
At  the  uttermost  points  of  earth,  in  the  midst  of  heaven, 

thou  dost  move. 
The  inhabitants  of  the  whole  earth  thou  dost  watch  over, 


78  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

All  that  Ea,  the  king,  the  prince,  has  created  thou  dost 

watch  over, 
All  created  beings  thou  dost  shepherd  together. 
Thou  art  the  shepherd  of  all  above  and  below, 
Thou  dost  march  in  order  over  heaven's  course, 
To  lighten  the  earth  dost  thou  come  daily. 
The  waters,  the  sea,  the  mountains,  the  earth,  the  heaven. 
How  ....  orderly  dost  thou  come  daily. 
Among  all  the  Igigi  there  is  not  that  giveth  rest,  but  thee; 
Among  all  the  gods  of  the  Universe,   there  is  none  that 

exceeds  thee. 
At  thy  rising  all  the  gods  of  the  lands  assemble  together. 
Who  plans  evil — his  horn  thou  dost  destroy, 
Whoever  in  fixing  boundaries  annuls  rights. 
The  unjust  judge  thou  restrainest  with  force. 
Whoever  accepts  a  bribe,  who  does  not  judge  justly — on  him 

thou  imposest  sin. 
But  he  who  does  not  accept  a  bribe,  who  has  a  care  for  the 

oppressed, 
To  him  Shamash  is  gracious,  his  life  he  prolongs. 
The  judge  who  renders  a  just  decision 
Shall  end  in  a  palace,  the  place  of  princes   shall  be  his 

dwelling. 
The  seed  of  those  who  act  unjustly  shall  not  flourish. 
What  their  mouth  declares  in  thy  presence 
Thou  shalt  burn  it  up,  what  they  purpose  wilt  thou  annul. 
Thou  knowest  their  transgressions;  the  declaration  of  the 

wicked  thou  dost  cast  aside. 
Every  one  wherever  he  may  be  is  in  thy  care. 
Thou  directest  their  judgments,  the  imprisoned  dost  thou 

liberate. 
Thou  hearest,  0  Shamash,  petition,  prayer,  and  appeal. 
Humility,  prostration,  petitioning,  and  reverence. 
With  loud  voice  the  unfortunate  one  cries  to  thee. 
The  weak,  the  exhausted,  the  oppressed,  the  lowly, 
Mother,  wife,  maid  appeal  to  thee. 
He  who  is  removed  from  his  family,  he  that  dwelleth  far 

from  his  city." 


Idea  of  Mediation  79 

There  are  other  beautiful  hymns  extant  which  show 
the  extent  to  which  the  sense  of  the  reality  of  the 
gods  had  penetrated  into  the  thoughts  of  the  people. 
They  do  credit  to  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  piety, 
and,  though  they  are  very  sadly  outnumbered  by 
magical  compositions,  they  are  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  vitality  of  religious  and  moral  thinking  among 
these  ancient  people. 

The  most  popular  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  feast 
was  that  of  the  New  Year.  It  was  called  the  Zagmug, 
and  was  celebrated,  at  first,  on  the  first  day  of  Nisan, 
at  the  end  of  the  spring  equinox  in  honour  of  Tam- 
muz.  Later  it  was  connected  with  the  worship  of 
Marduk,  and  was  celebrated  with  great  pomp.  There 
was  a  great  procession,  during  which  the  image  of 
Marduk  was  borne  in  a  ship-car,  accompanied  by 
images  of  other  gods.  It  then  extended  from  the 
first  to  the  tenth  of  Nisan,  and  on  the  eighth,  Marduk 
proceeded  out  of  E-Sagilla  to  celebrate  his  marriage 
with  Sarpanit.  During  the  great  festival  there  was 
a  solemn  conclave  of  all  the  gods,  in  the  presence  of 
Marduk  to  determine  the  destinies  of  the  New  Year. 
Religious  ceremonies,  of  course,  held  the  chief  place, 
in  which  hymns  were  sung,  incantations  were  chanted, 
and  prayers  were  offered. 

Another  great  festival  was  the  Shapattum  or  Sha- 
batum — a  feast  of  the  full-moon,  celebrated  on  the 
fifteenth  day  of  each  month.  It  was  a  day  of  pacifica- 
tion. It  is  to  be  differentiated  from  a  festival  which 
took  place  on  the  seventh,  fourteenth,  twenty-first, 
twenty-eighth,  and  nineteenth  of  each  month.     This 


80  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

latter  was  called  by  the  Babylonians  the  TJhnlgallum, 
and  the  days  on  which  it  was  celebrated  were  evil 
days,  or  times  of  taboo.  It  has  been  confused  with 
the  Shapattimi,  because  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
connected  with  the  phases  of  the  moon,  and  was, 
therefore,  a  moon-festival;  and,  secondly,  because 
the  Hebrew  word  Sabbath  has  been  connected 
with  the  same  days  of  the  month — even  with  the 
nineteenth  day,  since  that  is  seven  weeks  of  days 
from  the  first  day  of  the  preceding  month — and  is 
itself  probably  related  in  etymology  with  the  Baby- 
lonian Shapattum.  There  were  many  other  feast 
days,  such  as :  the  feast  of  Tammuz,  at  the  summer 
solstice,  in  the  month  of  Tammuz;  the  Ishtar  feast, 
in  the  month  of  Ab,  a  counterpart  of  the  Tammuz 
feast;  the  feast  of  Nubattu,  on  the  third,  seventh, 
and  sixteenth  of  each  month,  celebrating  the  mar- 
riage of  Marduk  and  Sarpanit;  the  Abab  feast  of 
Nabu,  on  the  fourth,  eighth,  and  seventeenth  of  each 
month ;  the  feast  of  Sin  and  Shamash,  on  the  twen- 
tieth; that  of  Shamash  and  Ramman  on  the  twenty- 
third;  of  Enegal  and  Ninegal  on  the  twenty-fourth; 
of  Gur  on  the  twenty-seventh;  the  Bubbulu  feast  of 
Nergal  on  the  twenty-eighth;  a  special  feast  of  Sha- 
mash on  the  seventh  of  Nisan,  and  on  the  fourth  of 
lyyar,  the  festival  of  the  marriage  of  Nabu  and  Tash- 
mit;  the  Akitu  moon-feast,  on  the  seventeenth  of 
Sivan ;  and  another  Shamash  feast,  on  the  fifteenth  of 
Adar.  In  short,  festival  days  were  as  numerous  as 
they  used  to  be  in  imperial  Russia,  spring  and  harvest 
festivals  being  the  most  numerous  and  popular.    They 


Idea  of  Mediation  81 

are  evidence  of  the  deep  religious  character  of  the 
people,  and  of  their  sense  of  dependence  upon  the 
gods,  for  the  feasts  were  all  religious. 

The  temples  were  the  holiest  spots  of  all  the  earth 
to  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians.  They  were  the 
home  and  abode  of  the  presence  of  the  gods.  By 
rite  and  symbol,  by  decoration  and  image,  the  sign 
was  given  everywhere  in  them  that  the  gods  were 
there.  The  architecture  and  decoration,  the  myste- 
rious lights  and  shadows  of  the  holy  of  holies,  were 
not  what  made  its  awfulness.  It  was  that  the  gods 
were  there.  There  they  shone  in  all  their  glory. 
There  they  declared  their  will.  There  they  forgave 
sins.  There  they  bestowed  their  blessings.  There 
they  gave  their  commandments.  The  gods  were 
known  there  as  they  were  known  nowhere  else;  and 
it  was  that  supremely  manifested  presence  of  the 
gods  there,  which  made  the  temples,  as  no  other  places 
on  earth  could  be,  sanctuaries  and  homes  of  the 
mighty  gods.  And  these  sanctuaries  were  to  be 
found  in  all  parts  of  the  land. 

In  the  very  earliest  times  a  mere  stone  or  altar, 
or  image,  could  constitute  a  temple,  or  even  a  room 
in  a  tent.  But  as  time  passed,  a  special  room  or  tent 
or  hut  was  set  apart  for  the  worship  of  the  gods,  in 
which  was  set  up  an  image  of  the  special  god  wor- 
shipped. The  spot  where  the  image  was  set  up  was 
the  ^"holy  of  holies",  to  which  only  kings  and  priests 
had  access.  Connected  with  the  "holy  of  holies",  in 
later  times,  was  a  long  hall  or  court  for  worshippers, 
and  a  second  court  where  business  transactions  were 


82  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

carried  on.  Grouped  around  these  two  courts  were 
scJiools,  archive  rooms,  and  priest's  apartments.  The 
most  conspicuous  part  of  a  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
temple  of  later  times  was  a  large  brick  tower,  con- 
sisting of  from  two  to  seven  super-imposed  stages, 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  high.  This  tower 
was  called  a  zikkurat,  and  had  a  shrine  at  the  top, 
and  a  winding  ascent  leading  from  bottom  to  top. 

Temples  were  numerous.  Every  city-god  had  his 
chief  sanctuary,  at  his  special  seat  of  worship.  Some- 
times there  were  as  many  as  thirteen  temples  in  the 
same  city,  as  at  Lagash,  but  all  stood  within  the  sacred 
area  of  the  city-god.  The  temple  was  the  center  of 
commercial,  social,  and  intellectual  life.  There  the 
gods  were  worshipped,  the  law  was  dispensed,  and 
goods  were  bought  and  sold. 

The  impression  made  by  these  great  temples  was 
lasting  upon  foreigners  as  well  as  upon  the  natives. 
The  particular  type  of  temple  which  we  speak  of  as 
Babylonian  was  Sumerian  in  origin  and  arose  among 
a  mountain-people.  The  zihkurat  represented  the 
mountain  where  the  god's  shrine  was  located,  and  the 
shrine  at  its  top  retained  the  memory  of  the  moun- 
tain shrines  of  the  early  Sumerian  people.  In  this 
connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  temple 
at  Nippur,  a  Sumerian  settlement,  was  called  E-kur, 
"mountain  house".  The  remembrance  of  the  Baby- 
lonian ziJvkurats  reflected  itself  in  the  Hebrew  story 
of  the  Tower  of  Babel.  Nor  did  it  stop  there,  for 
it  inspired  the  Mohammedan  minaret,  and  Christian 
campanile  and  tower. 


Idea  of  Mediation  83 

What  we  have  been  so  far  thinking  of  in  connection 
with  the  idea  of  mediation  in  Babylonian  and  Assyr- 
ian religious  thought  is  the  official  religion,  the 
religion  of  the  kings  and  priests  and  rulers.  But 
while  the  masses  of  the  people  were  related  to  the 
official  religion  in  the  closest  possible  way,  yet  there 
were  many  and  various  forms  of  religious  expression, 
which  were  very  popular  at  all  times,  and  which  held 
a  tight  grip  upon  the  people.  For  instance,  magic, 
though  finding  a  place  in  the  official  cult,  had 
endeared  itself  to  the  masses  of  the  people  in  their 
earnest  and  determined  effort  to  control  the  demons 
and  to  influence  the  gods.  It  is  manifestly  hard  to 
know  where  religion  ends  and  magic  begins,  but  it 
may  be  stated,  as  a  working  hypothesis,  that  magic  is 
an  attempt  to  control  the  gods,  while  religion  appeals 
to  them.  Consequently,  magic  is  to  be  found  wher- 
ever there  is  a  firm  belief  in  the  existence  of  minor 
deities  or  demons,  for  men  rarely  presume  to  control 
the  great  gods,  while  their  only  dealing  with  demons 
is  to  try  to  overpower  them  and  to  use  them.  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian  magic  consisted  in  attempts  to 
control  and  use  unseen  demoniac  powers,  rarely  to 
coerce  the  great  gods.  Their  conception  of  sin,  as  a 
state  of  bodily  disorder,  arising  from  demoniac  pos- 
session, led  them  to  be  deeply  concerned  with  any 
power  that  could  control  the  source  of  sin. 

A^arious  were  the  rites  in  seeking  to  control  the 
cause  of  sin  and  sickness.  In  studying  these  rites 
we  must  not  mistake  the  reality  for  the  symbol.  A 
rite  is  of  value  either  as  a  symbol  of  sompthing  or  as 


84  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

a  means  of  something.  Laughter  is  the  S3^mbol  of 
joy,  but  as  we  laugh  our  laughter  reacts  upon  the  joy 
and  heightens  it.  A  rite  is  a  sjrtnbol  of  some  relig- 
ious belief,  and  as  we  practise  it  the  religious  belief 
becomes  more  and  more  intensified.  The  rites  prac- 
tised in  freeing  from  demoniac  possessions  were  use- 
ful only  as  they  symbolized  the  desired  relief  from 
unwholesome  and  sinful  conditions.  They  were 
worthless  in  themselves,  and  merely  temporary  insti- 
tutions. No  doubt  many,  perhaps  most,  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  failed  to  see  beyond  the  symbol,  but 
we  can  trust  the  genius  of  any  religion  to  be  able  to 
distinguish  between  essentials  and  non-essentials. 
The  essential  was  to  be  free  from  sickness  and  sin, 
the  transitory  symbol  was  the  rite  performed  in 
attaining  that  end. 

The  rite  of  exorcism  was  performed  in  order  to 
deliver  from  the  power  of  demons.  It  was  a  symbolic 
ritual,  in  which  fire  and  water  played  a  prominent 
part.  Images  of  the  demons,  whose  expulsion  was 
sought,  were  made  of  clay,  or  pitch,  or  wax,  and 
were  cast  into  fire  to  be  destroyed.  Or,  in  the  case 
of  the  water  ritual,  the  person  to  be  delivered  was 
sprinkled  with  pure  water  mingled  with  aromatic 
woods,  which  resulted  in  the  desired  deliverance. 
Usually  the  two  acts,  the  use  of  fire  and  water,  were 
combined.  For  just  as  the  sun  rose  from  out  the 
primeval  watery  abyss,  so  the  two  elements  of  fire 
and  water  were  effective,  when  used  in  connection 
with  the  power  of  water  and  light  deities,  such  as 
Ea  and  Marduk,  who  were  the  patrons  of  exorcism 


Idea  of  Mediation  85 

par  excellence,  Ea  the  water-god,  and  Marduk  the 
solar-deit}^  The  ceremony  was  called  the  ashapu, 
and  was  usually  held  on  the  bank  of  a  river.  Many 
other  minor  points  of  ritual  were  added  to  the  rite 
from  time  to  time,  such  as  the  use  of  amulets,  the 
chanting  of  magic  formulae,  symbolic  gestures,  and 
burning  of  different  objects. 

Exorcism  was  used  not  only  in  case  of  individual 
sin  and  suffering,  but  also  whenever  a  temple  was  to 
be  erected  or  the  statue  of  a  god  to  be  dedicated. 
There  developed  an  extensive  incantation  literature, 
consisting  of  magical  poems  to  be  used  on  all  kinds 
of  special  occasions.  Some  of  the  most  important 
collections  of  such  texts  are:  the  Maqlu  ("burning") 
and  the  Shurpu  ("burning")  series,  the  Labartu 
(name  of  a  demon)  and  the  Tiu  ("headache")  texts. 

Magic  and  exorcism  are  related,  both  expressing 
man's  relationship  to  demons.  Magic  seeks  to  con- 
trol them,  and  exorcism  attempts  to  expell  them. 
They  are  man's  means  of  defending  himself  against 
demons  and  evil  spirits. 

But  man  not  only  desires  to  strengthen  himself 
against  demoniac  influence;  he  also  feels  the  need 
of  learning  the  will  of  the  gods.  This  need  expressed 
itself,  among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  in  very 
definite  religious  rites,  such  as  divination  and  sooth- 
saying, the  most  elaborate  being  the  former. 

Divination  is  a  desire  and  attempt  to  know  the 
future,  which  can  best  be  accomplished  by  learning 
the  will  of  the  gods,  who  hold  the  destinies  in  their 
power.    The  officer  in  charge  of  all  acts  of  divination 


86  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

was  the  priest,  and  the  most  common  ritual  of  divina- 
tion was  the  inspection  of  the  liver  of  a  sacrificial 
sheep.  As  we  have  already  learned,  gods,  men,  and 
animals  were  all  related.  Now  the  seat  of  life  was 
the  blood,  and  the  bloodiest  organ  is  the  liver,  which 
was  therefore  thought  to  be  the  specific  seat  of  the 
soul.  AVhen  an  animal  was  sacrificed  it  became  iden- 
tical with  the  gods,  and  its  liver  the  mirror  of  the 
gods.  The  sheep  was  the  typical  sacrificial  animal, 
its  soul  or  life  was  located  in  its  liver,  and  therein 
was  reflected  the  soul  or  life  of  the  gods. 

It  was  the  business  of  the  divining  priest,  or  haru, 
to  inspect  the  liver,  and  to  make  decisions.  On  the 
basis  of  observations  as  to  its  shape,  size,  and  other 
conditions  of  the  different  lobes  and  ducts  of  the 
liver,  decisions  as  to  the  will  and  intention  of  the  gods 
were  made.  The  ceremony  of  "liver  inspecting",  a 
phrase  which  became  the  regular  term  for  divination, 
became  quite  elaborate.  The  officiating  priest  was 
obliged  to  perform  introductory  lustrations  for  him- 
self and  for  those  assisting,  with  anointings.  Special 
garments  had  to  be  worn,  and  special  prayers  were 
offered  to  Shamash,  or  Shamash  and  Adad ;  Shamash 
being  the  god  of  di^dnation  par  excellence.  The  sac- 
rificial sheep  had  to  be  without  blemish. 

The  oldest  form  of  divination,  however,  consisted 
in  the  pouring  of  oil  upon  water  or  water  upon  oil, 
and  watching  its  movements;  or  the  observation  of 
the  flight  of  birds;  or  the  interpretation  of  dreams. 
But  liver  divination  can  be  traced  back  as  early  as 
the  first  Sargon,  about  2650  B.  C,  and  it  lasted  till 


Idea  of  Mediation  87 

the  latest  times.  It  was  passed  on  to  the  Hittites, 
who  in  turn  handed  it  on  to  the  Etruscans,  from 
whom  the  Romans  learned  it,  with  variations,  using 
the  heart  as  well. 

Another  form  of  divination  consisted  in  the  obser- 
vation of  abnormal  phenomena  in  the  life  of  man, 
or  in  that  of  animals;  another  in  the  interpretation 
of  dreams ;  and  still  another  in  the  shooting  of  arrows. 

But  next  in  importance  to  divination  by  liver  obser- 
vation was  what  has  been  called  astrology,  an  observa- 
tion of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Priestly  scholars  had 
developed  a  theory  that  this  world  is  an  exact  dupli- 
cate or  reflexion  of  the  world  of  the  gods.  All  phe- 
nomena and  events  in  this  world  correspond  to 
heavenly  phenomena  and  events.  In  heaven  the  will 
of  the  gods  is  expressed,  and  if  man  can  read  the 
will  of  the  gods  in  the  heavens  he  will  consequently 
know  what  is  happening  and  what  will  happen  in 
this  world.  In  the  heavens  the  stars  play  the  chief 
part  in  the  representation  of  the  god's  will,  and  there- 
fore the  study  of  the  stars,  and  of  other  heavenly 
bodies,  became  the  divine  science.  This  has  been 
called  astrology. 

The  science  cannot  be  traced  much  earlier  than  the 
First  Babylonian  Dynasty,  although  the  system  was 
perfected  about  2000  B.  C.  Then  the  heavenly  bodies 
were  associated  with  the  great  gods  of  the  Babylonian 
pantheon.  Shamash  was  the  sun,  Sin  was  the  moon, 
Ishtar  was  Venus,  Marduk  was  Jupiter,  Ninib  was 
Saturn,  Nabu  was  Mercury,  and  Nergal  was  Mars. 
The  chief  of  these  gods  was  Sin,  "the  Lord  of  Wis- 


88  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

dom"  (En-zu).  The  &arw-priests  observed  eclipses, 
and  all  other  heavenly  phenomena,  and  interpreted 
them  in  terms  of  divine  intention.  This  means  of 
divination  became  highly  developed.  Other  stars 
besides  the  planets  were  studied  and  their  peculiari- 
ties noted.  Constellations  were  traced  along  the  eclip- 
tic, and  the  twelve  signs  of  the  zodiac  were  marked. 
The  first  stars  to  be  identified  by  the  Babylonians 
were  Jupiter  and  Venus,  the  former  because  of  its 
brilliancy,  and  the  latter  because  of  its  occurrence  as 
an  evening  star  one  part  of  the  year  and  as  a  morning 
star  during  the  other  part.  It  was  left  to  Greek 
astrologers  to  map  out  the  heavens  to  correspond  to 
the  lands,  mountains,  seas,  and  rivers  of  the  earth, 
but  the  Babylonians  had  begun  the  study. 

Babylonian  astrology  had  very  little  to  do  with  the 
individual.  Its  interests  centred  on  affairs  of  state. 
Individual  concerns  were  served  by  the  simpler  forms 
of  divination  such  as  the  observation  of  abnormal 
animal  and  human  phenomena,  or  by  the  observation 
of  phenomena  in  nature,  and  by  the  interpretation 
of  dreams.  The  decline  of  astrology  set  in  at  the 
close  of  the  Assyrian  period,  when  it  began  to 
pass  out  of  the  astrological  stage  into  the  stage  of 
astronomy. 

There  were  other  means,  public  as  well  as  private, 
which  were  devised  in  the  attempt  to  come  into  rela- 
tionship with  the  gods.  Oracles  were  granted  by  the 
priests,  especially  after  the  seventh  century;  pilgrim- 
ages were  made  to  learn  the  will  of  certain  important 
deities,  as  when  Ashurbanipal  journeyed  to  Arbela 


Idea  of  Mediation  89 

to  consult  Ishtar;  and  individuals  claimed  the  power 
of  prophetic  insight  into  the  ways  of  the  gods.  But 
whatever  means  were  adopted  the  officiating  person 
was  a  priest.  As  a  representative  of  the  king,  at 
least  in  early  thought,  he  developed  into  the  standard 
mediator  in  all  matters  that  involved  the  gods  and 
men.  The  means  and  modes  of  his  mediation  were 
numerous  and  varied,  but  the  central  idea  was  that 
man's  happiness  and  success  always  depend  upon  the 
will  of  the  gods,  upon  the  relationship  between  gods 
and  men,  and  upon  the  success  with  which  mediation 
was  negotiated.  This  idea  is,  and  has  always  been, 
practically  universal.  It  is  the  heart  and  core  of  all 
religion,  and  the  essence  and  power  of  Christianity. 


V 

THE  IDEA  OF  THE  FUTURE  IN 
BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

Every  true  life  has  a  goal  to  which  it  is  always 
looking  forward.  A  life  cannot  be  really  considered 
as  having  begun  to  live  until  that  far-off  city  in 
which  its  destiny  awaits  it,  where  its  work  is  to  be 
done,  where  its  problem  is  to  be  solved,  begins  to 
draw  the  life  towards  itself,  and  the  life  begins  to 
know  and  to  own  the  summons.  Very  strange  is 
this  quality  of  human  nature  which  decrees  that 
unless  a  man  feels  a  future  before  him  he  does  not 
live  completely  in  the  present.  Mankind  has  groT\m 
so  used  to  it  that  he  does  not  realize  how  strange  it 
is.  It  seems  to  be  necessary.  But  the  lower  natures, 
the  beasts,  do  not  seem  to  have  anything  like  it.  And 
one  can  easily  picture  to  one's  self  a  human  nature 
which  might  have  developed  in  such  a  way  that  it 
never  should  think  about  the  future,  but  should  get 
all  its  inspiration  out  of  the  present  things.  But  that 
is  not  human  nature.     Human  nature  must  always 

90 


Idea  of  the  Future  91 

look  ahead.  The  thing  which  it  liopes  to  become  is 
already  a  power  and  decides  the  things  it  is. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  too  had  a  goal  to 
which  they  were  always  looking  forward.  But  it  was 
located  primarily  in  this  life.  For  the  next  world 
they  cared  very  little.  Nevertheless  they  did  have  an 
idea  of  an  immortal  life,  though  it  was  very  limited, 
and  never  developed  to  any  considerable  extent.  Nor 
did  it  exercise  any  influence  upon  the  manners  and 
ways,  the  ethics  and  ideals,  of  this  life. 

This  limitation  in  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  out- 
look was  due  primarily  to  a  trait  common  to  all  early 
Semitic  peoples.  The  Semites  were  exceedingly  slow 
in  developing  an  adequate  conception  of  individual- 
ity. To  them  everything  centred  in  the  community 
and  in  its  life.  Individual  demands  and  desires  were 
rarely  considered.  Attention  was  concentrated  on 
the  state.  This  was  also  true  among  the  Hebrews. 
Until  the  time  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  no  real  con- 
ception of  individual  consciousness  had  developed, 
and  consequently  no  real  conception  of  the  future 
beyond  this  world.  There  was  thought  in  plenty 
about  the  nation's  future,  its  destiny  among  the  other 
nations  of  the  world.  But  there  seemed  to  be  no 
necessity  for  a  consideration  of  what  happened  in  a 
world  other  than  this.  A  nation  does  not  die  with 
the  Individual;  but  new  individuals  are  born  that 
compose  the  nation  of  the  future.  Of  course,  the 
individual  died,  and  his  death  was  noted,  and  there 
was  a  general  idea  as  to  what  happened  to  him.  But 
very  little  thought  was  ever  concentrated  upon  the 


92  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

subject.  The  same  was  true  of  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians.  Only,  whereas  the  Hebrews  developed 
beyond  that  stage  of  thought,  the  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  never  did.  And  the  failure  to  do  so,  in 
spite  of  their  other  accomplishments,  contributed 
largely  to  their  final  decay  and  downfall. 

At  death  the  body  and  soul  separated.  The  body 
was  committed  to  the  earth — never  cremated  except 
in  the  earliest  period — sometimes  in  a  brick  vault; 
more  often  it  was  placed  upon  a  slightly  raised  plat- 
form of  bricks,  provided  with  a  reed-mat  over  which 
was  a  large  cover.  Ordinarily,  however,  the  body  was 
placed  in  a  baked-clay  coffin  in  capsule  form,  or  in 
a  coffin  made  by  fitting  together  two  deep  bowls,  or  in 
a  huge  vase,  or  in  a  coffin  of  bath-tub  shape,  of  flask- 
shape,  or  slipper-shape.  The  place  of  burial  was 
usually  the  temple  court.  The  departed  soul,  edimmu, 
was  spoken  of  as  having  gone  to  its  fate.  It  was 
thought  of  as  a  wind  or  breath,  napislitu,  and  was 
believed  to  take  a  lively  interest  in  the  body  which 
it  left  behind. 

In  order  to  guarantee  rest  for  the  soul,  the  body  had 
to  be  cared  for  by  being  supplied  with  food  and  imple- 
ments. The  soul  was  thus  enabled  to  continue  what 
was  really  an  earthly  existence  in  the  next  world. 
Offerings,  anag,  were  made  for  the  repose  of  the  soul. 
They  were  either  burned  or  consumed  as  a  family 
meal,  or  both,  and  in  later  times  the  custom  of  pour- 
ing a  libation,  in  connection  with  the  meal,  was 
common. 

The  departed  soul  continued  to  live  in  a  conscious 


Idea  of  the  Future  93 

or  semi-conscious  state,  in  a  life  inferior  to  the  pres- 
ent. It  was  considered  a  minor  deity,  gidim,  and  was 
often  propitiated,  but  was  thought  to  be  deprived  of 
all  pleasure. 

The  home  of  the  departed  was  kno^^^l  by  different 
names,  the  chief  of  which  was  Arallu.  Sometimes 
it  was  called  Irsii  la  tari,  "land  of  no  return",  but 
it  was  also  called  "the  mountain  house  of  the  dead", 
the  "vast  city",  the  "prison  house",  and  the  "house 
of  Tammuz".  The  Poem  of  Ishtar's  descent  into 
Arallu  furnishes  us  with  the  most  complete  account 
of  what  the  abode  of  the  future  was  like.  It  was  a 
large  dark  cavern  under  the  surface  of  the  earth,  full 
of  dust,  where  souls  passed  a  miserable  existence  of 
inactivity  and  gloom,  and  subsisted  on  dust.  The 
approach  to  it  was  in  the  western  region  of  the  earth, 
where  seven  gates  guarded  by  sentinels  gave  entrance. 

The  ruler  of  the  reahn  of  the  dead  was  the  goddess 
Ereshkigal,  also  called  Allatu.  The  god  tergal 
descended  into  Arallu  and  married  Ereshkigal.  Being 
a  god  of  pestilence  and  death,  identified  later  with 
Mars,  his  cult  centre,  Kutha,  became  a  designation  of 
Arallu.  Ishtar  was  also  associated  with  Arallu, 
which  she  visited  in  order  to  restore  her  lover  Tam- 
muz. Xergal  and  his  consort  employed  demons  as 
their  messengers,  the  chief  being  Belit-seri  and 
Namtaru. 

Ishtar's  "descent  into  Arallu"  is  probably  a  poetic 
version  of  an  old  vegetation  myth,  the  disappearance 
of  Ishtar  being  the  death  of  nature,  when  all  growth 
on  earth  ceased.    But  it  throw^s  interesting  light  upon 


94  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

the  popular  conception  of  Arallu.  At  every  one  of 
the  seven  gates,  Ishtar  was  compelled  to  part  with 
an  article  of  clothing  until  she  appeared  naked  before 
Ereshkigal,  who  ordered  her  servant  Namtaru  to 
imprison  the  goddess.  Ea  interposed  on  behalf  of 
Ishtar,  whereupon  Ereshkigal  commands  Namtaru 
to  sprinkle  Ishtar  with  "water  of  life"  and  to  release 
her.  Ishtar  departs  and  receives  her  clothes  as  she 
passes  each  of  the  seven  gates. 

There  is  also  an  echo  in  Babylonian  literature  of  an 
"Island  of  the  Blest",  situated  at  the  confluence  of 
the  streams,  where  Utnapishtim  and  his  wife  were 
led,  after  the  flood,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  only  for 
special  individuals.  There  is,  however,  nothing  def- 
initely known  about  the  future  of  such  heroes. 
Enkidu  (or  Eabani)  also  goes  to  Arallu,  but  when 
he  appears  to  his  friend  Gilgamesh  he  has  no  definite 
information  to  impart,  other  than  that  Etana  and 
Ereshkigal  were  there. 

To  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  death  was  an 
unmitigated  evil,  with  which  no  ethical  considera- 
tions were  connected.  Once  a  soul  departed  to  Arallu, 
his  fate  was  unalterable  and  permanent.  There  was 
no  belief  in  transmigration  or  resurrection.  There  is 
only  one  instance  of  a  soul  rising  from  Arallu,  besides 
the  goddess  Ishtar,  and  that  was  Enkidu;  yet  he  did 
not  gain  deliverance,  but,  like  the  shade  of  Samuel, 
returned  again. 

Such  was  the  future  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyr- 
ians. There  was  no  "Kingdom  of  God"  in  the 
future  for  them.     Their  best  vision  was  confined  to 


Idea  of  the  Future  95 

this  world,  and  that  was  not  very  inspiring.  The 
Hebrew  dream  of  a  Messianic  Kingdom,  of  a  city  of 
God,  was  "unknown  to  them.  When  we  think  of  the 
dreariness  in  outlook  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyr- 
ians, of  the  absence  of  that  power  which  could  have 
consecrated  their  nationalism,  their  patriotism,  their 
wealth,  their  glory,  and  their  individual  sacrifices, 
it  is  a  real  wonder  that  they  ever  accomplished  any- 
thing. They  had  no  dream  of  an  ideal  spiritual  king 
and  an  ideal  spiritual  nation  to  realize;  they  were 
thrown  back  upon  their  native,  natural  will  to  live, 
for  their  inspiration.  And  when  we  contemplate  the 
great  things  they  accomplished,  their  art  and  archi- 
tecture, their  military  grandeur  and  their  mighty 
empire,  their  literature  and  science,  their  deep  sense 
of  piety  and  their  fine  moral  distinctions,  we  are  sur- 
prised at  any  limitations  to  the  dream  of  more 
favoured  nations,  who  have  had  all  the  stimulus  and 
inspiration  of  a  glorious  spiritual  future,  a  moral  and 
religious  city  and  kingdom  of  God. 


VI 


THE  IDEA  OF  MORALITY  IN  BABYLONIA 
AND  ASSYRIA 

Many  hundreds  of  years  ago  a  Hebrew  poet  wrote, 
"In  thy  light  we  shall  see  light".  The  poet  saw  men 
all  around  him  running  hither  and  thither  seeking 
light.  The  poet  sympathized  with  them,  for  he  too 
thought  light  the  most  precious  thing  in  the  world. 
But  he  saw  a  great  fallacy  in  the  search  for  light  of 
his  time.  Men  appeared  to  be  questioning  this  thing 
and  that  thing,  as  if  the  secret  of  its  being,  its  power 
to  be  understood  and  comprehended,  the  light  with 
which  it  ought  to  shine,  were  something  it  carried  in 
itself.  He  declared  this  to  be  wrong.  To  him  every- 
thing is  comprehensible  and  capable  of  being  under- 
stood only  as  it  exists  within  the  great  enfolding  pres- 
ence of  God.  To  him  it  is  only  in  their  relations  to 
the  perfect  nature  that  all  other  natures  can  become 
intelligible.  Only  within  the  elements  where  they 
belong,  only  as  they  are  held  inside  the  atmosphere 
of  larger  natures  to  which  they  bear  essential  and 
96 


Idea  of  Morality  97 

sacred  relationships,  can  the  finest  and  truest  natures 
of  many  things  be  understood.  The  beauty  of  the 
flower  or  the  majesty  of  the  mountain  can  only  truly 
be  seen  in  the  radiance  of  the  glowing  sun. 

When  we  turn  to  study  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
morals,  it  must  be  held  inside  the  atmosphere  of 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  life  and  customs.  We  must 
learn  to  judge  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  in  the 
light  of  their  o\\ti  time.  Their  heredity,  environment, 
and  social  traditions  must  limit  our  decisions.  We 
must  not  forget  that  they  lived  many  hundreds  of 
years  before  the  rise  of  Christianity.  It  is  only  in 
the  light  of  their  time  that  we  can  hope  to  cast 
light  upon  their  moral  realities  and  ideals. 

The  origin  of  moral  ideas  reaches  back  into  prehis- 
toric times.  The  earliest  historic  man  habitually 
differentiates  between  good  and  bad.  His  "good" 
and  "bad"  doubtless  differed  from  ours,  having  been 
probably  more  confined  and  narrower.  We  say  that 
"good"  is  that  which  favours  human  progress,  and 
"evil"  that  which  impedes  it.  But  the  Babylonians 
and  x\ssyrians,  because  of  their  known  piety,  would 
probably  have  defined  "good"  as  that  which  is  pleas- 
ing to  the  gods  and  "evil"  as  that  which  incites  the 
anger  of  the  gods.  "Good"  and  "evil"  may  originally 
have  been  purely  ritual  and  ceremonial,  but  in  his- 
toric times  we  shall  find  that,  although  ritual  right 
and  wrong  still  prevailed  to  a  certain  extent,  a  posi- 
tive moral  distinction  was  made.  Our  o^vn  moral 
distinctions  are  based  upon  what  we  consider  to  be 
the  will  of  God  and  upon  what  has  become  customary. 


98  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

The  same  is  true  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  morals. 
What  their  gods  willed  was  right,  what  they  dis- 
proved was  wrong;  what  was  customary  was  right, 
and  what  was  not  customary  was  wrong. 

Of  course  the  gods  will  what  we  thinlc  they  will. 
We  think  God  wills  justice,  righteousness,  purity,  etc. 
The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  thought  he  willed  the 
same,  though  their  idea  of  justice,  purity,  and  right- 
eousness may  have  been  different  from  what  ours  is. 
They  may  have  conceived  sin,  for  example,  in  a  more 
ceremonial  way  than  we,  and  may  have  considered 
it  and  "sickness"  to  be  equivalent.  This  we  must 
take  into  consideration  in  our  evaluation  of  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian  morals. 

Every  human  act  is  done  for  some  end  or  purpose. 
The  end  is  always  regarded  by  the  agent  in  the  light 
of  something  good.  If  evil  be  done,  it  is  done  as 
leading  to  good,  or  as  bound  up  with  good,  or  as  itself 
being  good  for  the  doer  under  the  circumstances. 
The  standard  of  moral  judgment  is  that  which  is 
considered  good  or  bad,  wrong  or  right.  But  what  is 
considered  good  or  bad,  wrong  or  right,  depends  upon 
people  and  time.  To  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians, 
human  acts  were  right  or  wrong,  good  or  bad,  not 
according  as  they  were  useful  or  hurtful,  nor  yet 
according  as  their  consequences  made  for  or  against 
the  end  of  social  happiness,  but  according  as  they 
were  pleasing  or  displeasing  to  the  gods.  The  Baby- 
lonians and  Assyrians  aimed  at  material  blessings, 
prosperity,  success  in  war  and  in  private  undertak- 
ings; but  they  also  aimed  at  tranquility  of  soul;  and 


Idea  of  Morality  99 

most  of  all  their  greatest  concern  was  to  please  the 
gods. 

In  examining  the  subject  matter  of  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  morals,  allowance  must  be  made  for  a  wide 
gap  between  the  ideal  and  the  real.  We  must  be 
careful  not  to  confuse  what  were  actual  practices  with 
what  were  merely  ideals,  although  the  ideals  will  be 
valuable  as  an  indication  of  what  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  knew  to  be  best  and  of  what  they  tried 
to  attain. 

In  this  gap  between  the  ideal  and  the  real,  man  is 
always  standing;  between  their  visions  and  tasks  all 
men  are  standing  always.  For  every  man  has  visions, 
glimpses  clearer  or  duller,  now  bright  and  beautiful, 
now  clouded  and  obscure,  of  what  is  absolutely  and 
abstractly  true;  and  every  man  also  has  pressing  on 
him  the  warm,  clear  lives  of  fellow  men.  There  is 
the  world  of  ideals,  of  truths,  on  one  side,  and  there 
is  the  world  of  reality,  of  men,  upon  the  other. 
Between  the  two  stands  man;  and  these  two  worlds, 
if  man  is  what  he  ought  to  be,  meet  through  his 
nature. 

In  attempting  to  gain  an  idea  of  the  morals  of 
any  people  or  age  a  standard  of  judgment  must  be 
assumed.  The  most  convenient  criterion  is  the  moral 
standard  of  our  own  age.  By  using  this  standard  of 
judgment  we  can  compare  the  moral  ideas  of  any 
people  or  age  with  those  of  our  own  age,  and  decide 
whether  they  were  higher  or  lower  than  ours.  We 
may  thus  commend  or  condemn  the  morals  of  the 
people  or  age  under  consideration.    But  this  criterion 


100  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

cannot  be  used  to  commend  or  condemn  the  morals 
of  any  individual  of  another  people  or  age  than  our 
own.  The  individual  must  be  commended  or  con- 
demned on  the  basis  of  the  morals  of  his  own  times — 
as  to  whether  he  has  been  true  or  false  to  the  moral 
ideals  of  his  own  people  and  time. 

In  order  to  compare  the  morals  of  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  with  our  own,  our  first  task  will  be  to 
find  what  their  moral  ideas  were,  and  what  was  the 
content  of  their  moral  ideas.  We  shall,  therefore,  try 
to  discover  their  Moral  Ideals,  their  idea  of  Moral 
Evil,  their  moral  determinants,  whether  they  were 
conscious  of  a  freedom  of  will  or  not,  and  what  their 
Moral  Sanctions  were. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  always  ascribed  the 
best  they  knew  to  their  gods.  If  we  can  learn  what 
that  was  we  shall  be  in  a  position  to  state  what  their 
moral  ideals  were.  The  chief  endeavour  of  the  Baby- 
lonians and  Assyrians  was  to  please  their  gods,  and 
in  order  to  do  that  it  was  necessary  that  they  should 
know  what  the  will  of  the  gods  was.  The  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  saw  the  will  of  the  gods  in  the  customs 
and  laws  of  their  time,  for  the  authorship  of  all  law 
and  precedent  was  ascribed  to  the  gods.  To  obey 
the  gods,  then,  was  to  be  obedient  to  the  custom  and 
law  of  the  time.  The  Law,  therefore,  was  the  moral 
ideal. 

But  what  did  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  law  consist 
in,  or  by  what  was  it  characterized?  It  consisted 
in  justice,  righteousness,  truthfulness,  etc.  But  what 
was  the  content  of  justice,  righteousness,  truthful- 


Idea  of  Moraliiyf  101 

ness,  etc.?  Their  content  must  necessarily  have 
depended  upon  the  customs  and  legal  decisions  of 
those  times.  The  customs  and  legal  decisions  of 
the  times,  then,  will  define  the  moral  ideals  of  the 
Babylonians  and  Assyrians. 

We  shall,  therefore,  examine  the  customs  and  legal 
decisions  of  the  family,  social,  international,  trans- 
cendental, and  personal  life  of  the  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  in  order  to  determine  what  the  content  of 
their  moral  ideals  was.  And  we  shall  begin  by  noting 
what  ideals  they  ascribed  to  their  gods. 

The  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  referred  to  his  god  as 
the  ^'^sovereign  of  justice",  the  "perfect"  one,  the  lord 
of  "righteous"  command;  with  him  they  associated 
such  qualities  as  faithfulness,  purity,  goodness,  and 
uprightness;  and  he  was  considered  the  punisher  of 
the  wicked.  The  deities  were  particularly  associated 
with  law  both  as  originators  and  as  administrators. 
They  possessed  law  as  their  own,  and  there  was  a 
tendency  to  ascribe  all  law  to  them.  As  a  rule,  what- 
ever was  ascribed  to  the  gods  was  "perfect",  "right- 
eous", and  "just".  Therefore,  all  law  was  just, 
because  it  belonged  to  and  came  from  the  gods.  The 
numerous  legal  contracts,  representing  the  Babylonian 
and  Assyrian  periods,  illustrate  the  important  role 
which  law  played  in  the  every-day  life  of  these 
peoples.  The  law  of  the  gods  was,  in  short,  the 
moral  ideal  of  the  people.  It  was  their  standard  of 
all  "perfection"  and  "justice". 

Now,  the  just  law  of  the  gods,  as  the  moral  ideal, 
consisted   in   speaking   the   truth,   which   was   often 


1 02  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

guaranteed  by  an  oath,  especially  in  contracts.  The 
many  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  contracts  show  how 
great  was  the  dependence  npon  a  promise,  which  the 
contracting  parties  accepted  as  true.  The  moral  ideal 
consisted  also  in  what  was  right,  which  likewise  was 
guaranteed  by  an  oath,  usually  in  the  name  of  the 
gods ;  e.  g.,  a  true  servant  is  he  who  does  what  is  right 
or  good.  It  consisted  in  the  recognition  of  honesty; 
e.  g.,  the  home-transgressor  is  rewarded  for  his  hon- 
esty in  owning  his  wrong.  It  consisted  in  the  love 
of  justice,  and  the  abhorrence  of  wickedness. 

But  did  the  Babylonians  mean  the  same  thing  by 
ka-gi-na,  zi,  dug,  etc.,  as  we  mean  by  "to  speak  jus- 
tice", "righteousness",  "good",  etc.  ?  Ideally,  they  did. 
Gudea  tells  us  that  during  a  religious  festival  in  his 
time  the  maid  was  equal  to  her  mistress,  the  master 
and  the  slave  consorted  together,  the  powerful  and 
humble  lay  down  side  by  side,  the  rich  man  did  not 
wrong  the  orphan,  the  strong  did  not  oppress  the 
widow,  and  the  sun  shone  justice  and  Babbar  trod 
injustice  under  foot.  In  general,  the  ideal  required 
that  law  be  the  same  for  the  poor  as  for  the  rich. 

The  actual  laws  and  customs  of  the  times,  however, 
will  teach  us  how  near  in  practice  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  really  approached  this  ideal.  Their 
actual  practice  in  these  matters  as  compared  with  our 
own  will  determine  their  moral  status  as  a  people. 

It  is  true  that  we  have  evidence  in  inscriptions  that 
there  was  a  great  deal  of  freedom  and  real  harmony, 
e.  g.,  in  family  life,  and  that  the  husband  showed  a 
real  sense  of  duty  even  to  a  divorced  wife — which, 


Idea  of  Morality  1 03 

however,  may  have  been  more  the  result  of  the  pres- 
ence of  law — but  it  is  evident  that  clemency  was  the 
father's  prerogative.  He  could  divorce  his  wife  at 
will,  and  inflict  the  severest  punishments  upon  the 
members  of  his  family.  In  short,  the  father  of  a 
family  had  rights  which  no  one  else  possessed. 

To  a  certain  extent  the  mother  shared  the  father's 
authority  and  rights.  Children  owed  obedience  to 
her  as  well  as  to  the  father,  and  she,  as  well  as  the 
father,  had  the  power  of  disinheritance.  Both  parents 
shared  the  family  responsibilities.  They  were  obliged 
to  care  for  their  children,  and  care  for  orphans  was 
always  demanded. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  power  of  the  father  always 
tended  to  be  restricted  by  legal  decisions,  which 
became  established  law,  e.  g.,  marriage  was  a  legal 
contract;  the  right  of  the  father  to  sell  wife,  son, 
or  daughter  was  in  time  restricted  to  a  sale  which 
was  valid  only  for  three  years;  the  wife's  definite 
rights  increased,  e.  g.,  a  man  could  not  take  a  con- 
cubine without  a  valid  excuse ;  a  slave  wife  could  not 
be  sold  if  she  bore  children;  and  children  had  legal 
property  rights.  The  father's  control  over  servants 
was  even  greater  than  that  over  his  wife  and  children, 
yet  servants  had  their  rights,  and  were  treated  in 
such  a  way  that  in  turn  they  often  showed  real 
respect  for  their  master. 

In  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  as  in  all  society,  efforts 
were  continually  made  to  bring  about  reforms  in 
family  law,  but  down  to  the  end  of  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  civilization  the  head  of  the  family  enjoyed 


1  04  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

peculiar  rights — rights  which  would  be  called  -unjust 
when  judged  by  the  standard  of  modern  family 
customs. 

In  social  life,  the  king  was  always  revered  by  his 
subjects ;  he  was  the  righteous  shepherd  of  his  people, 
and  regulated  all  decisions;  he  was  full  of  wisdom 
and  devotion,  and  by  him,  as  the  standard  of  justice, 
as  well  as  by  the  gods,  oaths  were  sworn.  The  ideal 
king  was  not  extortionate,  and  took  care  that  taxes 
were  as  light  as  possible;  and  he  was  merciful  in 
battle.  It  was  a  common  practice  to  make  votive 
offerings  for  a  ruler — a  practice  which  showed  real 
devotion  to  the  king. 

The  relation  between  individuals  demands  good 
deeds,  truthfulness,  justice,  and  mercy.  The  relation 
of  the  individual  to  established  law  was  that  of  obe- 
dience, for  the  established  law  was  meant  to  be  just, 
being  the  gift  of  the  just  gods;  nor  should  the  just 
decisions  of  the  gods  ever  be  changed. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  had  a  keen  sense 
of  property  rights,  and  it  was  here  that  their  sense 
of  legal  justice  was  most  highly  developed.  Agree- 
ments were  made  in  all  property  transactions  and 
contracts  were  duly  drawn  up  in  legal  form,  and 
sworn  to  by  the  name  of  the  gods  and  that  of  the  king 
before  witnesses  in  the  presence  of  proper  legal  offi- 
cials. E.  g.,  law  protected  the  owner  or  tenant 
from  any  unfair  treatment.  The  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  were  very  painstaking  and  exact  in  all 
business  affairs,  and  preserved  painstaking  inven- 
tories of  all  details.    Receipts  were  given  and  always 


Idea  of  Morality  1 05 

acknowledged  in  a  regular  legal  fashion.  The  moral 
ideal  in  business  life,  therefore,  was  strict  justice, 
truthfulness,  and  honesty. 

Free  labourers  were  hired  in  a  legal  way  and  had 
their  definite  rights,  and  salaries  were  paid  according 
to  a  legal  scale  at  set  times.  Even  the  king  felt 
keenly  his  responsibility  to  the  labouring  class.  Slaves, 
however,  were  not  treated  as  freemen,  but  were  con- 
sidered the  property  of  their  master.  Slaves  were 
bought  and  sold  just  like  cattle.  Yet  they  were  sup- 
posed to  be  morally  truthful  and  were  expected  to 
take  an  oath  and  to  act  as  witnesses;  and  they  had 
the  right  to  appear  in  a  lawsuit  in  their  own  favour. 
They  also  had  a  certain  independence,  for  they  could 
contract  marriage  with  women  in  the  service  of  other 
masters,  and  could  dispose  of  the  property  of  their 
masters.  The  more  humane  rulers,  such  as  Uruka- 
gina,  from  time  to  time  tried  to  establish  as  much  of 
liberty  to  all  men  as  possible,  but  slavery  was  always 
the  rule. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  made  repeated 
efforts  to  better  social  conditions,  as  the  reforms  in 
the  reign  of  Urukagina  show.  He  restored  sacred 
lands  that  had  been  taken  by  a  former  king,  reduced 
the  number  of  unnecessary  secular  officials,  deposed 
officials  condemned  for  bribery,  reduced  the  scale  of 
exorbitant  priestly  fees,  punished  theft,  and  put  a 
stop  to  forced  labor. 

Peace  was  the  international  and  moral  ideal,  and 
many  treaties  were  made  to  obtain  it.     They  were 


106  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

secured  by  oath  in  the  name  of  the  gods,  and  hence 
were  established  upon  justice  and  truthfulness.  The 
violation  of  a  treaty  was  to  be  punished  severely. 
Yet,  in  spite  of  treaties,  wars  were  very  frequent ;  but 
slaughter  was  excused  as  having  been  commanded  by 
the  gods,  for  wars  were  holy.  Great  care  was  accord- 
ingly taken  to  treat  the  dead  in  a  proper  manner. 

The  transcendental  moral  ideal  of  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  may  be  said  to  have  been  piety.  Their 
gods  were  holy,  righteous,  just,  truthful,  pure,  good, 
perfect,  compassionate,  merciful,  mighty;  and  the 
right  attitude  towards  such  beings  was  one  of  obe- 
dience, love,  and  worship.  The  state  as  a  whole  rec- 
ognized these  obligations,  as  did  also  the  individual. 
The  gods  were  not  only  the  protectors  of  the  just, 
but  they  were  also  the  punishers  of  the  wicked.  The 
temples  and  shrines  of  the  gods  were  always  thronged 
with  devout  worshippers,  and  the  gods  were  the 
source  of  protection,  and  by  their  oracles  their  wor- 
shippers were  guided. 

The  king's  relation  to  the  gods  was  of  a  special 
nature,  for  his  distant  ancestors  were  the  very  sons  of 
the  gods,  and  each  king  loved  to  call  himself  the  son 
of  his  god  or  goddess.  Moreover,  they  were  the 
prophets  of  the  gods,  the  intermediary  between  them 
and  mankind.  They  were  also  the  chief  priests,  and 
offered  sacrifices  and  gifts  for  themselves  and  people 
to  the  gods.  All  the  king's  power  was  a  gift  from 
the  gods,  and  the  gods  chose  him  and  crowned  him, 
and  in  return  the  king  built  temples,  groves,  canals, 
statues,  shrines,  etc.,  and  dedicated  them  to  his  god. 


Idea  of  Morality  1 07 

The  kings  were  often  considered  sinless,  because  of 
their  devotion  to  the  gods  and  to  the  welfare  of  their 
people. 

The  individual's  relation  to  the  deity  was  that  of 
true  obedience  and  pious  reverence.  His  true  atti- 
tude was  "to  cast  down  the  face"  before  his  god. 
Although  he  feared  his  god,  he  also  had  absolute 
confidence  in  him,  as  the  many  Babylonian  and  Assyr- 
ian names,  expressive  of  this  sentiment,  would  show. 
Each  person  had  his  own  god  to  whom  he  especially 
prayed  and  from  whom  he  received  blessings,  but  all 
the  gods  were  the  object  of  personal  love,  reverence, 
and  adoration. 

Truth  may  be  said  to  have  been  the  personal  moral 
ideal  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians.  Its  asso- 
ciation in  the  mind  of  these  people  with  justice  is 
apparent,  and  it  may  owe  its  great  development  to 
their  keen  sense  of  justice.  Next  to  veracity  is  piety 
which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  individual,  and  here  again  the  idea  is 
wrapped  up  with  that  of  justice  which  belongs  in 
essence  to  the  gods.  Finally,  obedience  to  the  gods 
was  a  universal  ideal,  and  this  again  is  intimately 
associated  with  the  idea  of  justice.  The  Babylonian 
and  Assyrian,  indeed,  was  most  decidedly  a  law-abid- 
ing individual.  The  righteous  man  is  always  he 
who  is  true,  pious,  and  obedient;  he  also  was  brave, 
but  that  was  not  an  essential.  The  evil  man  was 
always  despised  and  subject  to  malediction  and 
punishment. 

Nor  is  the  moral  ideal  an  external  one,  as  might 


1 08  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

be  expected  from  an  ancient  people.  The  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians,  perhaps,  laid  a  great  deal  of  stress 
upon  external  requirements  in  religious  matters,  but 
their  moral  ideal  is  decidedly  an  internal  and  high 
one.  The  law  must  be  obeyed  not  merely  (although, 
perhaps,  primarily)  because  the  gods  gave  it,  but  in 
order  that  the  heart  may  feel  satisfaction.  The  word 
azag,  meaning  "clean",  though  often  used  in  a  way 
which  would  appear  to  indicate  an  external  or  ritual 
idea  of  "cleanness",  is  nevertheless  often  used  in  an 
internal  and  moral  way.  The  Babylonians  and  Assyr- 
ians developed  a  keen  sense  of  truth  and  obedience, 
and  their  piety  sprang  out  of  a  true  love  of  the  gods 
and  of  things  pertaining  to  them.  They  loved  to  fre- 
quent the  temple  of  the  gods,  not  because  they  were 
forced  to  do  it,  but  because  of  their  real  inward  piety. 

The  moral  ideals  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians, 
then,  may  be  said  to  have  been  expressed  in  terms  of 
the  just  law  of  the  gods,  and  of  obedience  to  it.  The 
moral  attitude  necessary  to  the  realization  of  the  ideal 
was  obedience  to  the  gods.  The  moral  ideal  in  family 
life  consisted  in  truth,  justice,  and  righteousness;  in 
political  or  social  life  it  consisted  in  justice,  honesty, 
righteousness,  truth,  and  mercy ;  in  international  life 
it  consisted  in  peace;  in  transcendental  life  in  piety, 
obedience,  love,  and  worship;  and  in  personal  life  in 
truth,  piety,  and  obedience. 

Thus  the  moral  ideals  of  the  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  consisted  in  doing  the  will  of  their  gods. 
They  were  their  gods'  battlements  and  not  their  own. 
Their    own    battlements    were    their    own    desires. 


Idea  oi  Moralliy  109 

These  had  to  be  taken  away  and  annihilated,  but  the 
will  of  the  gods  was  irrevocable. 

On  the  other  hand,  human  battlements  gave  proof 
of  neglect  of  the  gods.  Moral  evil  was  disobedience 
to  the  gods,  and  lack  of  faith  in  them.  Man's  life 
should  have  abundant  supply  for  all  its  needs,  should 
be  rich  enough,  safe  enough,  strong  enough;  and  yet 
all  this  abundance  is  not  to  come  by  or  in  itself,  but 
is  to  be  man's  portion,  because  he  is  himself  part  and 
parcel  of  the  divine  life,  held  closely  and  constantly 
upon  the  bosom  of  the  life  of  the  gods.  Man  does 
not  carry  his  sufficiency  in  himself ;  it  is  to  be  found 
in  the  gods.  The  opposite  of  all  this  is  impiety, 
lack  of  faith,  disobedience  of  the  law  of  the  gods, 
moral  sin. 

Moral  evil  was  primarily  regarded  as  consisting  in 
the  transgression  of  the  law  of  the  gods.  The  law 
of  the  gods  was  seen  in  the  customs  of  the  times  as 
well  as  in  actual  codified  law.  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  family  custom  or  law  was  very  severe  upon 
sexual  impurity;  in  adultery,  both  participants  were 
thrown  into  the  river ;  the  punishment  for  fornication 
with  a  betrothed  girl  was  the  death  of  the  man;  even 
abduction  was  punished  with  death;  incest  of  all 
forms  was  hated;  and  the  harlot  was  considered 
unholy. 

Truthfulness  was  at  a  premium,  as  the  many  oaths 
in  the  name  of  the  gods  show.  The  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  were  so  exacting  in  this  matter  that  often 
the  veracity  of  the  witnesses  in  a  lawsuit  was  ques- 
tioned and  a  new  process  was  undertaken  to  get  at 


1 1 0  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

the  truth.  A  lie  was  not  permitted  to  go  unnoticed ; 
and  the  slanderer  was  severely  dealt  with,  often  by 
being  branded. 

Moral  sin  was  believed  to  offend  the  gods  because 
it  was  against  their  commands,  and  it  was  natural 
that  the  sinner  should  ask  his  gods  for  their  forgive- 
ness. The  gods  took  cognizance  of  sin,  and  expected 
their  clients  to  acknowledge  it.  One  man  prayed  thus : 
"My  queen  knoweth  what  I  have  done,  oh,  conceive 
compassion;  forgive  my  sins,  lift  up  my  counte- 
nance"; another  says:  "Of  him  who  hath  sin  thou 
dost  receive  the  petition."  The  gods  were  full  of 
mercy. 

Social  moral  evil  consisted  in  oppression  and 
cruelty.  Cruelty  was  undoubtedly  common,  especially 
towards  enemies,  the  king  being  sometimes  depicted 
in  the  act  of  driving  an  arrow  into  the  neck  of  a 
captive  pleading  for  mercy,  and  oppression  was  com- 
mon in  the  reign  of  unscrupulous  kings  who  levied 
unjust  revenues  and  heavy  tribute.  Personal  rela- 
tionship frowned  upon  stealing,  robbery,  falsehood, 
and  slander,  all  of  which  were  severely  punished. 
The  suppression  of  justice  and  bribery  was  common, 
but  always  condemned.  Deceit  in  business  was 
severely  handled.  Urukagina's  reforms  give  us  a  fair 
idea  of  the  unfavorable  condition  which  sometimes 
prevailed  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  and  also  of  what 
a  king  like  Urukagina  considered  socially  wrong. 
He  tells  us  that  before  his  time  in  Lagash,  excessive 
taxes  were  levied,  and  the  taxgatherers  billeted  them- 
selves on  the  people;  that  the  patesi  used  to  appro- 


Idea  of  Morality  1  1  1 

priate  the  property  of  the  temple  for  himself  and 
that  the  sacred  oxen  were  used  to  plough  the  land 
of  the  patesij  that  the  priests  grew  rich  at  the  expense 
of  the  temple  and  plundered  the  people;  that  they 
entered  the  garden  of  the  people  and  cut  trees  and 
carried  off  the  fruit  for  themselves ;  that  they  used  to 
keep  on  good  terms  with  the  palace  by  dividing  the 
spoil;  that  they  oppressed  the  people  by  confiscating 
their  property;  and  that  they  used  forced  labor  and 
misused  the  laborers  by  means  of  force.  These  condi- 
tions prevailed,  but  they  were  reformed  by  Urukagina, 
who  felt  their  great  injustice.  Yet  it  was  certainly 
thought  that  sin  was  not  confined  to  ceremonial, 
ritual,  or  external  wrong ;  but  was  morally  conceived ; 
for  sin  resulted  in  disgrace. 

International  moral  evil  has  always  been  cruelty 
and  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  evidence  of  such  in 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  inscriptions,  though  there  is 
not  a  great  deal  of  it. 

The  moral  evil  in  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  trans- 
cendental life  is  that  which  arouses  the  anger  of  the 
gods.  It  is  not  clear  what  that  was,  but  disobedience 
or  irreverence  may  be  assumed.  When  the  deity  is 
vexed,  devastation,  murder,  etc.,  prevail.  Prayer  for 
forgiveness  and  compassion  was  then  in  order. 

Personal  moral  evil  consisted  in  disobedience  to  the 
customs  and  laws  of  the  time. 

As  already  seen,  punishments  were  often  very  se- 
vere, especially  in  the  case  of  sexual  sins.  This  may 
indicate  a  rather  external,  material,  or  ritual  idea  of 
the  conception  of  sin.    For  example,  a  man  was  put 


1  1 2  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

to  death  for  committing  fornication  with  a  betrothed 
girl.  This  may  be  because  such  an  act  would  cause  a 
depreciation  in  the  value  of  the  girl  in  the  eyes  of  her 
father,  who  expected  to  receive  the  bride  price  from 
her  future  husband.  Even  adultery  is  not  punished 
with  any  such  severity.  But  this  is  another  instance 
of  the  relation  of  the  father  to  the  family,  and  the  law 
was  made  or  the  custom  arose  with  his  interests  in 
view.  The  same  is  probably  the  explanation  of  the 
severe  punishment  of  an  abductor. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  believed  that  suf- 
fering always  brought  its  owtl  reward.  One  suffers 
what  he  deserves,  and  the  gods  see  to  it  that  the  sinner 
is  punished  by  being  cursed.  Suffering  was  considered 
a  mental  as  well  as  a  material  thing. 

There  is  no  doubt,  on  the  other  hand,  that  sin  was 
not  always  morally  considered.  The  breaking  of  a 
ritual  or  ceremonial  law  was  often  considered  quite  as 
blamable  as  an  offence  against  a  moral  law.  The  con- 
secrated woman  was  punished  with  death  if  she  ever 
took  part  in  secular  business,  because  of  her  ritual 
holiness,  and  she  evidently  was  never  permitted  to 
bear  children  to  a  man  who  became  her  husband,  for 
the  same  reason.  The  many  references  to  the  uncon- 
secrated,  and  to  unclean  hands,  likewise  point  to  a 
ritual  idea  of  sin. 

As  to  a  theory  of  the  origin  of  moral  evil,  there  is 
nothing  to  be  found  in  Sumerian  inscriptions  which 
is  equivalent  to  the  Paradise  story  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment or  the  yetzer  theory  of  later  Judaism.  The  in- 
terest of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  was  practical 


Idea  of  Morality  1 1  3 

rather  than  metaphysical.  They  realized  the  existence 
of  evil,  and  assumed,  without  debate,  that  it  came 
from  the  world  of  spirits  which  surrounded  them. 
They  would  not  accuse  their  gods  of  being  the  origin 
of  sin ;  but  besides  gods  there  were  numerous  demons, 
spiritual  and  unseen,  beings  from  whom  came  sick- 
ness and  death  and  to  whom  were  ascribed  all  evil. 
The  "evil  eye"  was  the  malevolent  glance  of  the 
demon. 

Moral  evil  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria  consisted  pri- 
marily in  a  violation  of  the  customs  and  laws  of  the 
gods  and  was  expressed  in  sexual  sin  in  family  life; 
in  oppression  and  cruelty,  falsehood  and  injustice,  in 
social  life;  in  cruelty  in  international  life;  and  per- 
haps in  disobedience  and  irreverence  in  transcendental 
and  personal  life. 

With  the  idea  of  a  sense  of  moral  evil  must  go  a 
feeling  of  free  will.  Evil  cannot  be  considered  blam- 
able  unless  there  is  a  certain  freedom  of  the  will.  If 
a  man  has  no  choice  but  to  do  evil,  he  cannot  be  held 
accountable  for  the  evil  which  he  has  no  power  to 
avoid.  The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  had  a  sense 
of  moral  evil  as  distinguished  from  ritual  and  cere- 
monial "wrong"  or  incorrectness.  They  differentiated 
moral  right  from  moral  wrong.  They  felt  themselves 
morally  responsible.  This  their  numerous  contracts 
are  sujBBcient  to  show.  "The  house-usurper  was  cog- 
nizant" that  what  he  had  done  was  wrong ;  and  that  he 
had  consciously  and  wilfully  done  an  evil  deed. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
later  Jewish  literature,  there  is  evidence  in  inscrip- 


1  1 4  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

tions  to  show  that  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians 
believed  to  a  certain  extent  in  predestination.  They 
spoke  of  the  "tablets  of  fate  of  the  gods",  and  of  one 
being  inscribed  into  the  book  of  life.  In  the  word 
nam-tar-tar-ri-e-ne,  the  use  of  the  plural  e-ne  shows 
that  the  Sumerians,  and  following  them,  the  Baby- 
lonians and  Assyrians,  considered  the  fates  to  be 
deities.  The  gods  were  believed  to  have  the  power  of 
directing  the  world  and  each  man's  destiny  was  in  a 
broad  and  general  way  prescribed  by  them.  This  did 
not,  however,  prevent  them  from  believing  at  the  same 
time  that  each  man  had  the  personal  power,  with  the 
help  of  the  gods,  of  directing  his  immediate  acts. 
Nor  did  they  feel  any  incongruity  in  these  two  seem- 
ingly opposite  ideas.  The  belief  in  prayer  to  the  gods 
assumed  a  belief  in  freedom  from  predetermined 
destiny. 

Moral  determinants  may  be  enumerated  as,  heredity, 
environment,  social  tradition,  and  personal  initiative. 
These  forces  always  condition  a  people's  morals. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  cus- 
toms in  the  light  of  these  forces.  The  family  was,  we 
know,  patriarchal,  at  least  in  historical  times.  The 
father  was  head  and  owner  of  the  family.  He  owned 
wife  and  child  just  as  he  did  sheep  or  oxen,  and  had 
the  legal  right  to  dispose  of  them.  Patriarchal  rights 
were  handed  on  from  generation  to  generation,  and 
though  from  time  to  time  decisions  were  made  limit- 
ing that  right,  and  these  decisions  gradually  became 
law,  yet  the  patriarchal  rights  among  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  were  to  a  great  extent  hereditaiy.    The 


Idea  of  Moralit}}  1  1  5 

environment  of  society  was  such  that  it  tended  to 
accentuate  the  right  of  the  pater  familias.  The  gov- 
ernment was  monarchical,  each  city  at  first  having  its 
own  prince  or  king.  The  family  was  a  government 
in  miniature,  and  the  necessity  of  the  preservation  of 
family  integrity  demanded  a  leader  and  head  in  which 
all  family  life  and  forces  could  centre.  That  leader 
was  necessarily  the  strong  one  of  the  family;  as  a 
rule,  the  father. 

Every  society  is  conditioned  ah  extra  by  an  envi- 
ronment or  atmosphere  which  we  call  social  tradition, 
and  in  the  case  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  this 
further  tended  to  emphasize  the  established  nature 
of  the  family  as  a  group  of  individuals  looking  to  the 
father  as  head. 

There  were,  however,  always  those  stronger  persons 
who  possessed  sufficient  force  of  character  to  disregard 
by  personal  initiative  certain  social  customs,  and  this 
is  how  we  account  for  certain  definite  progressive 
strides  in  ancient  civilization.  It  likewise  explains 
how  that  in  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  society  the 
father  of  the  family  was  often  forced  to  recognize  the 
rights  of  inferior  members  of  the  family.  But  he- 
redity, environment,  and  social  tradition  were  so 
strong  in  the  family  life  that  to  the  end  the  father 
remained  virtually  dictator  of  family  affairs,  and 
personal  initiative  never  played  much  of  a  role. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  effects  of  heredity, 
environment,  social  tradition,  and  personal  initiative 
in  social,  international,  transcendental,  and  personal 
life.     The  actions  of  a  king,  or  state,  or  individual. 


1 1 6  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

were  conditioned  by  heredity,  even  as  they  were  by 
environment  and  tradition,  and  yet  there  was  always 
a  place  for  personal  initiative.  These  circumstances 
must  always  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  nature  of  the  morals  of  any  people 
or  age. 

There  is  all  through  the  best  and  most  earnest 
thought  and  life  of  men  the  vision  of  a  great  attain- 
ment. That  man,  the  individual  man  and  the  uni- 
versal man,  is  what  he  is  only  in  preparation  for 
something  far  vaster  and  more  perfect  than  he  is — 
this  is  the  practical  doctrine  of  all  earnest  and  re- 
ligious men.  It  appears  in  all  religions — this  doctrine 
of  the  great  attainment,  the  belief  in  the  lofty  some- 
thing which  it  is  possible  for  man  to  become,  although 
no  man,  purely  man,  has  become  it  yet. 

But  though  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  shared 
with  all  mankind  this  lofty  ideal,  its  power  as  a  moral 
sanction  was  greatly  limited,  because  of  their  inability 
to  allow  its  extension  into  the  idealism  of  a  life  be- 
yond the  grave.  Their  moral  sanctions,  consequently, 
lacked  that  driving  power,  which  otherwise  would 
have  been  realized  had  they  not  been  foreshortened 
by  the  limitations  of  mere  mortal  existence. 

Moral  sanctions  or  considerations  which  give  force 
and  authority  to  moral  laws  may  be  either  external 
or  internal.  They  may  refer  to  rewards  and  punish- 
ments imposed  from  without,  or  to  consequences  of 
conduct  which  arise  spontaneously  from  within.  The 
Babylonians'  and  Assyrians'  respect  for  the  just  law 
of  the  gods  is  the  nearest  approach  we  find  to  an  in- 


Idea  of  Morality  1 1  7 

ternal  moral  sanction  in  their  religion.  It  is  true, 
disobedience  to  the  law  called  forth  punishment,  and 
in  that  respect,  was  an  external  moral  sanction, 
but  obedience  to  the  law  had  become  hereditary  and 
traditional  and  the  virtue  of  keeping  the  law  was 
perhaps  its  own  reward.  The  moral  ideal  was  per- 
fection or  sinlessness,  and  that  state  could  be  arrived 
at  only  through  obedience  to  the  law. 

The  most  potent  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  moral 
sanction,  however,  consisted  in  rewards  and  punish- 
ments imposed  from  without  by  an  external  author- 
ity in  the  present,  that  authority  being  either  divine 
or  a  constituted  legal  authority.  The  gods  became 
angry  with  the  sinful  and  punished  them ;  and  estab- 
lished law  provided  punishment  for  the  offender. 

Unlike  the  Hebrews  there  was  no  appeal  to  future 
rewards  and  punishments  in  Sumerian  thought.  The 
Babylonians  and  Assyrians  believed  in  the  survival  of 
the  soul  (edinifnu)  in  the  future,  in  Arallu,  the  land 
of  the  dead ;  but  Arallu  was  a  "place  of  desolation". 
Offerings  were  made  for  the  dead,  but  primarily  for 
the  purpose  of  keeping  them  from  harming  the  living. 
In  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  conception  of  life 
after  death,  the  moral  factor  was  entirely  absent.  Nor 
did  the  gods  ever  concern  themselves  with  the  dead, 
who  lived  in  a  gloomy  and  silent  habitation.  What 
happiness  a  man  may  desire  must  be  secured  in  this 
life,  and  hence  moral  standards  were  completely  adap- 
ted to  the  present  needs,  without  any  reference  to 
the  future.  The  future,  therefore,  did  not  hold  any 
moral  sanction  for  the  Babylonians  and  the  Assyrians 


1 1 8  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

as  it  did  for  the  Hebrews.  It  was  in  this  life  that 
moral  sanctions  were  to  be  found,  and  they  were 
found  chiefly  in  the  fact  that  the  gods  demanded 
obedience  to  just  laws — adherence  to  moral  standards. 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  well  to  enumerate  the 
main  features  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  morals, 
and  to  make  an  estimate  of  them.  In  making  this 
estimate  we  must  be  careful  to  distinguish  between 
national  and  individual  morals,  for  while  the  morals 
of  a  nation  may  be  commended  or  condemned  in 
comparison  with  the  morals  of  our  own  time,  indi- 
vidual morals  must  be  judged  in  the  light  of  the 
customs  of  the  age  of  the  particular  individual  under 
consideration. 

Our  study  of  the  morals  of  the  Babylonians  and 
of  the  Assyrians  as  a  nation  has  revealed  certain 
defects.  Their  idea  of  the  deity  was  far  inferior  to 
ours,  for  while  they  considered  the  gods  to  be  the 
source  of  all  justice,  truth,  righteousness,  etc.,  yet 
their  justice,  truth,  and  righteousness  were  national 
and  not  international.  Moreover  their  gods  were  con- 
ceived in  a  very  anthropomorphic  way,  and  were  sub- 
ject to  the  need  of  change  and  repentance  just  as 
men  are.  In  short  their  moral  conception  of  their 
gods  was  a  limited  one,  but  very  high  within  these 
limitations.  Again,  their  idea  of  the  rights  and  priv- 
ileges of  the  head  of  the  family  was  inferior  when 
considered  in  the  light  of  the  twentieth  century,  but 
its  limitations  were  due  to  the  customs  and  traditions 
of  the  time.  "Convention  is  king  over  all,"  says  Pin- 
dar, and  according  as  convention  changed,  so  the 


Idea  of  Morality  \  1 9 

rights  of  the  father  were  more  and  more  limited. 
Another  defect  was  noted  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject of  punishment.  Many  of  the  punishments  reg- 
ulated by  the  law  were  far  too  harsh  in  our  judgment, 
but  they  again  were  regulated  by  custom  and  tradition, 
for  certain  punishments  which  are  considered  just  in 
the  twentieth  century  may  be  considered  equally  harsh 
in  the  thirtieth  century.  The  lex  talionis  and  capi- 
tal punishment  serve  not  only  to  show  how  compara- 
tively cruel  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  were,  but 
they  may  also  be  taken  as  an  indication  of  the  great 
abhorrence  felt  by  them  for  certain  types  of  sin. 
Slavery  was  another  national  defect,  but  that  again 
was  in  order  among  all  ancient  peoples.  That  the 
slaves  enjoyed  certain  very  definite  rights  was  a  step 
in  that  direction  which  finally  led  to  the  banishment  of 
slavery;  but  not  till  many  thousands  of  years  had 
passed.  There  were  other  defects,  if  we  judge  these 
people  by  our  twentieth  century  standards;  e.  g.,  the 
people  apparently  had  very  little  share  in  the  govern- 
ment ;  magic  controlled  much  of  the  religious  life,  and 
sin  was  likely  to  be  very  physically  conceived.  But 
here  again  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  moral  determi- 
nants of  the  age,  e.  g.,  heredity,  environment,  and 
social  tradition. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  study  has  revealed  to  us 
much  evidence  of  real  moral  strength  in  the  character 
of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians.  We  have  seen 
that  their  moral  ideals  were  very  high,  and  that  their 
practice  often  very  nearly  approximated  their  ideals. 
The  moral  ideal  in  family  life,  we  have  seen,  was 


1 20  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

truth,  justice,  and  righteousness;  in  political  or  social 
life  it  was  justice  and  righteousness,  truth  and  mercy ; 
in  business  life  it  was  justice,  truthfulness,  and  hon- 
esty; in  international  life  it  was  peace,  established 
upon  justice  and  truth;  in  transcendental  life  it  was 
piety,  consisting  in  obedience,  love,  and  worship ;  and 
in  personal  life  it  was  truth.  In  short,  justice  and 
truth  were  the  great  fundamental  moral  ideals  of  the 
Babylonians  and  Assyrians.  Nor  was  the  moral  ideal 
merely  external,  consisting  in  a  materialistic  mo- 
rality; it  was  certainly  also  internal,  being  persisted 
in  out  of  a  desire  for  real  heartfelt  satisfaction. 

Their  idea  of  moral  evil  was  a  very  discriminating 
one.  Moral  evil  generally  consisted  in  a  transgression 
of  the  laws  of  the  gods.  In  family  life  it  consisted 
chiefly  in  injustice  and  immorality ;  in  social  and  po- 
litical life,  in  oppression  and  cruelty ;  in  international 
life,  in  cruelty ;  in  transcendental  life,  in  irreverence ; 
and  in  personal  life,  in  disobedience.  These  moral 
evils  were  strongly  detested  and  severely  punished.  In 
short,  moral  evil  consisted  in  the  violation  of  the  laws 
and  customs  of  the  times,  or  in  other  words  in  the 
violation  of  the  will  of  the  gods.  Sin  was  often 
considered  ceremonially,  but  it  was  certainly  also 
considered  from  a  purely  moral  point  of  view. 

Moral  sanctions  have  also  been  considered,  and  we 
found  that  here  also  there  was  not  lacking  a  real  in- 
ternal sanction,  though  the  predominating  one  was 
external. 

The  individual  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  cannot  be 
judged  in  the  light  of  the  twentieth  century.  He 
must  be  commended  or  condemned  according  as  he 


Idea  of  Moraliiyf  1 2 1 

obeyed  or  disobeyed  the  laws  of  his  time.  He  was, 
as  is  every  individual  of  every  age,  controlled  by  cer- 
tain moral  determinants,  such  as  heredity,  environ- 
ment, and  social  tradition.  All  these  must  be  taken 
in^o  consideration  in  our  estimation  of  his  morals. 
We  have,  accordingly,  found  that  the  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  was  a  truthful,  just,  and  pious  individual; 
he  was  conscious  of  a  certain  amount  of  free  will; 
he  was  accustomed  to  weigh  motives  and  intentions; 
and  yet  he  felt  that  his  life  and  destiny  were  in  a 
way  controlled  by  the  gods. 

In  short,  our  study  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
morals  has  led  us  to  believe  that  as  a  people  they  may 
be  said  to  have  been  especially  characterized  by  their 
devotion  to  justice  and  truthfulness;  and  in  spite  of 
the  presence  of  much  materialism  in  their  social  life, 
and  of  much  regard  for  ceremonial  in  their  religious 
life,  their  moral  ideals  were  singularly  high.  Judged 
by  a  twentieth  century  standard  they  were  as  a  nation 
on  a  much  lower  level,  generally,  than  the  nations  of 
the  Western  world.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  noth- 
ing to  show  that  the  individual  Babylonian  and  Assyr- 
ian, judged  as  he  must  be  by  the  moral  standards  of 
his  own  time,  was  anything  else  than  a  truthful,  just, 
law-abiding,  and  pious  subject  of  his  king  and  gods. 

As  we  look  back  over  our  study  of  the  religious  and 
moral  ideas  of  the  Bab3donians  and  Assyrians,  and  re- 
call their  exalted  piety  and  reverence  for  their  gods, 
the  consciousness  of  their  continual  dependence  upon 
them,  and  the  ideals  which  they  ascribed  to  them ;  as 
we  recall  their  doctrine  of  man  and  his  relationship  to 


1 22  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

the  gods,  his  dependence  upon  them,  and  his  effort 
to  emulate  them ;  as  we  think  of  the  system  they  had 
developed  to  preserve  intact  a  continual  communi- 
cation between  themselves  and  the  gods ;  and  especially 
as  we  contemplate  the  height  of  moral  purpose  and 
the  depth  of  moral  insight  to  which  they  had  attained, 
we  can  well  be  puzzled  by  the  barrenness  of  their 
faith  in  the  future.  Their  faith  in  the  gods,  in  man, 
in  the  power  of  mediation,  and  in  moral  goodness, 
was  a  great  force  in  their  daily  life.  They  seemed 
to  gather  living  force,  wisdom,  and  faith,  out  of 
every  experience,  and  to  apply  them  to  this  faith  in 
the  gods  and  in  man,  in  mediation,  and  in  morality. 
But  the  accumulation  of  faith  stopped  short  at  this 
point.  They  were  like  the  peevish  and  complaining 
Israelites,  who,  in  spite  of  Jehovah's  care  for  them  in 
the  past,  could  not  believe  that  he  could  give  bread 
also,  and  flesh  for  his  people. 

The  S5rmmetry  of  their  religious  and  moral  life 
was  destroyed  by  their  lack  of  faith  in  the  future. 
They  had  developed  the  height  of  their  mystic  relig- 
ious city.  Its  reach  towards  the  divine  had  made 
excellent  progress.  They  had  developed  its  breadth, 
its  outreach  laterally.  They  understood  human  na- 
ture, and  had  made  great  strides  along  the  lines  of  so- 
cial and  national  development.  They  had  built  up 
great  and  reliable  institutions  of  commerce,  trade,  and 
law.  But  the  length  of  their  mystic  city  of  religious 
thought  was  miserably  dwarfed.  It  practically  ended 
with  this  life.  There  was  no  reaching  forward  with 
eagerness  to  a  future  life.    Their  religion  remained  a 


Idea  of  Moralityf  123 

mundane  one;  their  morals  did  not  reckon  with  the 
future. 

This  was  the  limitation  which  blighted  the  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian  religion.  The  debt  which  the 
world  owes  Babylonia  and  Assyria  in  science,  com- 
merce, art,  literature,  morality,  and  especially  law, 
is  deep  and  lasting.  The  science  of  astronomy  was 
born  in  the  cradle  of  Assyrian  astrology;  the  tech- 
nique of  commerce  was  developed  and  perfected  in 
the  shops  and  market-places  of  Babylon  and  Nine- 
veh, with  great  merchants,  such  as  the  "House  of 
Murashu  and  Sons";  art,  especially  of  the  plastic 
type,  was  perfected  in  Babylonia  over  two  thousand 
years  before  Christ;  literature  had  made  mighty 
strides  before  history  in  Greece  was  born;  morality 
seems  to  have  been  native  in  a  high  form  with  the 
earliest  Babylonians;  and  the  Code  of  Hammurapi 
not  only  surpassed  the  laws  of  Manu  and  of  the 
Eoman  Twelve  Tables,  but  antedated  them  by  many 
hundreds  of  years.  The  institutions  of  Western  civi- 
lization are  permeated  through  and  through  with 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  culture.  We  cannot  reckon 
time  without  doing  so  in  terms  of  Babylonian  math- 
ematics ;  we  cannot  make  out  a  receipt  without  signing 
it  in  a  Babylonian  way;  we  cannot  seal  a  letter  with- 
out using  an  Assyrian  patent ;  we  cannot  think  of  the 
creation  of  the  world  or  of  the  catastrophies  which  the 
glacial  period  left  in  its  trail  without  making  use  of 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  cosmological  ideas :  we  can- 
not draw  up  a  code  of  ethics  without  using  Assyrian 
and  Babylonian  models ;  and  we  cannot  draw  up  a  legal 


124  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

contract,  in  legal  terms,  without  the  use  of  Babylonian 
technical  phraseology. 

No  race  has  more  profoundly  impressed  the  world's 
civilization  in  these  matters  than  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians.  But  their  primitive  conception  of 
the  future  became  so  encrusted,  so  hardened,  that  no 
influences  from  without  were  ever  able  to  reach  it. 
Nor  was  the  cnist  ever  broken.  That  crust  finally 
crippled  all  religious  effort.  A  religion  and  morality 
which  had  the  possibilities  of  so  much  within  them 
became  diseased  at  the  core  mth  a  malady  which 
caused  their  death.  The  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
religion  is  a  sad  example  of  a  one-sided  religion, 
whose  inevitable  outcome  is  decay.  Mighty  Babylon 
and  Assyria's  grandeur  have  not  left  themselves 
without  excellent  witnesses  of  their  priceless  gifts  to 
human  endeavour,  but  their  temple  of  religious  in- 
sight must  always  remain  a  ruin,  albeit  an  interesting, 
instructive,  and  grand  one. 


A  SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Dhorme,  p.,  La  Religion  Assyro-Bahylonienne,  Paris,  1910. 
Farnell,  L.  R.,  Greece  and  Babylon,  Edinburgh,  1911. 
Habpeb,  R.  F.,  Code  of  Hammurabi,  Chicago,  1904. 
Hopkins,  E.  W.,  The  History  of  Religions,  chap.  XVIII, 

New  York,  1918. 
Jastkow,  M.,  Aspects  of  Religious  Belief  and  Practice  in 
Babylonia  and  Assyria,  New  York,  1911. 
Cimlization  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  Philadelphia, 

1915. 
Hebrew  and  BabylonioM  Tradition,  New  York,  1914. 
Die    Religion   Babyloniens    und   Assyriens,    Giessen, 
1905-12. 
Jeremias,    a..    Die    babylonisch-assyrischen    Vorstellungen 

vom  Leben  nach  dem  Tode,  Leipzig,  1897 
Johns,  C.  H.  W.,  An  Assyrian  Doomsday  Book,  Leipzig, 
1901. 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Laws,  Contracts,  and  Let- 
ters, New  York,  1904. 
King,  L.  W.,  A  History  of  Sumer  and  Akkad,  New  York 
(n.  d.). 
A  History  of  Babylon,  London,  1915. 
Annals  of  the  Kings  of  Assyria,  London,  1902. 
KoHLER,  J.,  AND  Ungnad,  A.,  Assyrische  Rechtsurkunden, 
Leipzig,  1913flf. 
Hammurabi's  Gesetz,  Bd.  I-V,  Leipzig,  1904-11. 
Langdon,  S.,  "Babylonian  Eschatology"   (in  Essays  offered 
to  C.  A.  Briggs,  New  York,  1911). 
Babylonian  Liturgies,  Paris,  1913. 
Sumerian  and  Babylonian  Psalms,  Paris,  1909. 

125 


126  Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 

Mercer,  S.  A.  B.,  The  Oath  in  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
Literature,  Paris,  1912. 
"Early  Babylonian  Morals",  Journal  of  the  Society 

of  Oriental  Research,  2,  Chicago,  1918. 
"Sumerian  Morals",  ih.,  1. 
"Malediction  in  Cuneiform  Inscriptions",  Journal  of 

the  American  Oriental  Society,  1915,  No.  3. 
"Emperor  Worship  in  Babylonia",  ih.,  1917,  360-80. 
"Mediation     in     Religious    Thought",     Constructive 

Quarterly,  March,  1919. 
"War    and    War-Gods",    "Water    and    Water-Gods", 
Hastings'  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics. 
Moore,  G.  F.,  History  of  Religions,  I,  New  York,  1913. 
MoRGENSTERN,    J.,    "The   Doctrine    of    Sin    in    Babylonian 
Religion",  Mitteilungen  der  Vorderasiatischen 
Gesellschaft,  Berlin,  1905. 
Paffrath,    T.,    Zur    Gotterlehre   in    den    althalylonischen 

Konigsinschriften,  Paderborn,  1913. 
Radau,    H.,     Sumerian    Hymns    and    Prayers    to    Ninih, 

Munchen,  1913. 
Rogers,  R.  W.,  A  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  I-II, 
New  York,  1915. 
The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  New  York, 
1908. 
Streck,  M.,  Assurbanipal,  Leipzig,  1916. 
Thureau-Dangin,    F,,    Die   Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen 

Konigsinschriften,  Leipzig,  1907. 
Ungnad,    a.,    Bahylonische    Briefe    aus    der   Hammurapi- 

Dynastie,  Leipzig,  1914. 
Zimmerx,  H.,  "Babylonians  and  Assyrians",  Encyclopaedia 
of  Religion  and  Ethics. 


INDEX 


Adad,  23. 
Allatu,  93. 
Anag,  92. 
Anu,  11. 
Anunnaki,  21. 
Arallu,  93. 
Arum,  36f. 
Ashapu,  85. 
Ashtart,  17. 
Ashtoreth,  17. 
Ashur,  2 Iff. 
Assyrian  gods,  23. 
Astrology,  27f.,  87f. 
Astrologers,  26f. 


Ea,  8, 12f. 
Enlil,  12. 
Enuma  Elish,  35. 
Ereshkigal,  19,  93f. 
E-sagila,  18. 
Etana,  38. 
Exorcism,  85. 


Father,  44. 
Feasts,  79f . 
Flood,  41. 
Foreigner,  53f. 
Freewill,  113. 


B 


Baru,  86. 
Bel,  18. 
Burial,  92. 


Children,  their  duties,  44. 
Communion,  68. 
Creation,  35ff . 


Divination,  85flF. 


Geshtinanna,  20f . 
Gibil,  20. 
Gilgamesh,  37f. 
Girru,  20. 
Goddesses,  24. 
Gods,  53ff. 

H 

Henotheism,  30. 
High  priest,  66. 
Hittites,  3. 

Hymns,  to  Ishtar,  76f. 
to  Shamash,  77f. 


127 


128 


Religious  and  Moral  Ideas 


I 

Igigi,  21. 
Immortality,  40. 
Individual,  47. 
Ishtar,  16ff.,  23f. 


Judge,  48. 
Justice,  49f . 


N 

Xahi,  19. 
Nabu,  18f. 
Nergal,  19f.,  93. 
Nina,  3. 
Ningirsu,  9,  10. 
Ninib,  19. 
Ninursa,  19. 
Nusku,  20. 


K 


Kassites,  3. 
King.  46. 
Kingship,  38f. 
Kittu,  30. 


Law,  48. 


M 


Magic,  85. 
Marduk,  lOf.,  18f. 
Marriage,  43f. 
Misharu,  30. 
Monotheism,  30fr. 
Moon,  13. 

Moral  determinants,  114. 
Moral  evil,  origin  of,  112f. 
Moral  sanctions,  116f. 
Moral  sin,  llOf. 
Morals, 

family,  102ff. 

international,  lOof. 

social,  104f. 

transcendental.  106. 


Oath,  52. 
Oracles,  88f . 


Peace,  53f. 
Polytheists,  30. 
Prayer,  7  Iff. 
Predestination,  114. 
Property,  50. 
Priesthood,  64ff. 
Punishments,  severe,  49. 


Ramman,  23. 

S 

Sacrifice,  68ff. 
Shamash,  14f. 
Shangu,  66. 
Sin,  15f.,  origin  of,  40. 
Slave,  45.  5 If. 
Society,  45. 
Solar  deities,  14. 
Sun,  13f. 


Index 


129 


Tammuz,  17,  20f. 
Temples,  8 If. 
Trade  and  business,  50. 
Treaties,  52. 
Triads,  25ff. 

U 

Utnapishtim,  37f. 


W 

War,  53ff. 

Wife,  her  rights,  44. 


Yahweh,  12,  16,  21. 

Z 
ZiTcJcurat,  82. 


I'i'lll  I  III  I  ^"11°!',?'.'?,^.'  Sem.nary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01145  3554 


Date  Due 


